Meanwhile while in the real business world, Cloud decisions are shaped by marketing campaigns and it's the hobbyists and old grey-beards who provide the empirical push-back and reality checks.
"One are individuals with bodies that gain weight regardless of what the person does."
Physically, that's not possible. If calories consumed is less than calories burned, the body cannot add weight. It doesn't have access to zero-point energy.
Physically, it is possible, and you noted it in your comment. “Calories burned” - what could possibly make you think this is fixed across all humans?
There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body and to not use energy. Whether it be physical disability that prevent movement, or diseases that dis-regulate your metabolism.
There are many people who eat sufficient food and are perpetually lethargic. Their body has the energy, and chooses not to use it.
When I did chemo, I actually put on weight, despite eating almost nothing. I had pretty bad nausea despite my 4 anti-emetics, so food was difficult to eat. Even drinking water was hard.
So how could I have possibly put on weight? Well I was sleeping 16+ hours a day, not moving at all, and my hormones plummeted. I lost most of the muscle on my body. I obviously don’t know what my basal metabolic rate was, but it must have been incredibly low. Even my brain, which uses a lot of calories, didn’t work right. I couldn’t think right.
If you didn't use energy, you would not need to breath: breath is driven by the CO2 accumulation and the CO2 is a byproduct of the body extracting energy from organic matter. And if you believe you use energy but very little compared to the lucky individuals with god-like metabolism then you would be able to breath very infrequently (and your heart rate would also be low) compared to them.
This is a very surface-level and primitive analysis. Of course the amount of energy you use varies based off of your activities and the state of your body. Never did I say I used "zero energy", you're fighting ghosts here.
Rather, my point was simple: calories-in and calories-out is correct, but the mistake evangelists of this ideology make is assuming calories-out is fixed or even a simple equation. It's not, and this is what pushes your narrative from "science" to "ideology".
>There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body and to not use energy
Now, grammatically it makes no sense, but I thought "and" was just a typo and then sentence read as: "There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body to not use energy" to witch I responded.
"would resell on the secondary market for a giant profit."
But you've no evidence that that "giant profit" would be more than the increase that the suppliers would apply.
Arbitrage allows the market to find an agreeable price; a middleman arbiter with a warehouse of RAM has an incentive to agree a price with a buyer because he's stuck with that inventory if he doesn't shift it, and he has costs related to financing it.
A supplier has no such incentive, they can just jack the price up and if sales drop off they run the machines at a lower rate, or sack employees. But sales aren't going to drop off, because the baseline for demand has been lifted
Once this "RAM Crisis" is over, what reason would manufacturers have to reduce prices?
They have to cover their fixed costs somehow. Collusion and cartels only get you so far. OPEC and Mexican drug cartels are still exposed to market pressures.
"Designing the plane may only have taken four years, but training the staff, organising the workshops and mastering the production tools took much longer."
Lockheed had no experience with titanium prior to OXCART. 95% of the first 6,000 sheets of titanium had to be scrapped.
It was the first production design to incorporate low-observable shaping.
It was 50% faster than anything Lockheed had previously tried to build, and four times faster than the U-2.
And they literally did all that between April 1958 and April 1962.
So, yes, it was designed from scratch as nothing useful from prior projects read across to it.
Yes of course, it's part of the actuarial calculation. As cars age they become more expensive to repair and eventually will cross a boundary where the insurer will write them off on any type of accident, rather than trying to repair. This naturally increases the base insurance price.
OEMs in the EU are only required to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model is withdrawn, which is a strong indicator of when write-off becomes the primary option.
If you are not in the market for a new car, there are plenty of second hand EVs now. Including some that are close to 15 years old. Most of those will easily beat your ICE car on maintenance and fuel consumption. And they aren't that much more expensive even.
Every nuclear nation plans on winning a nuclear exchange. Of course, what 'winning' means is debatable, but they very much plan to beat the threat and not just bluster about mutual nuclear annihilation.
It's not free, it moves the cost onto the users of those services. I have to pay with my time and my data.
Or, increasingly, I hit backspace as soon as I see the Cloudflare logo. Who's going to pay when the users don't?
reply