i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s.
both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions. they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate.
fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it.
i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though.
i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war?
you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn't make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason.
basically they're going to try to maximize profit so they're going to do a business calculation. if there is a segment of the population, (lets say 30% of people for example) don't order an uber or food delivery because of the costs, and they can cut their costs by 40% per delivery by making cars self driving, they might lower costs for food delivery by $9 to get that 30% of people that are too price sensitive to use their service to become customers. i for one am one of those people that almost NEVER orders food delivery or ubers solely because of the cost. but if it went from $22 to $13 i might consider it. that's just an example and im making up numbers to demonstrate the point. there's always a business calculation when it comes to whether they lower costs or not. sometimes lower cost increases profit. when businesses make a new product or service usually when it's new that service is really expensive, and their main goal is cutting the cost so they can sell to the average consumer and have a huge market share rather than just selling to an elite few.
walkabout cities dont really work with big outer neighborhoods and suburbs with single family homes on large plots of land, and those necessitate cars. personally i like living in the suburbs. that being said, if enough people want walkable cities they can build them. i personally prefer 15 minute drives more than 15 minute walks tho, lol.
well both can be true at once. a business that hires at $40 per employee with 10 employees is going to have to charge more than a business that hires $20 per employee with 10 employees, but regardless both are gonna to charge whatever is going to maximize their profits
Does this have to do with safety regulations or something? Like what is the reasoning behind it? Because I heard these Chinese cars dont have good safety regulations
they'll charge whatever's most profitable but if two self driving transportation companies are in competition with each other and they both want to dominate the market, one might set their prices lower than the other to steal the market share. the only way that wouldn't happen is with two monopolies agreeing to not undercut each other, which happens. but in general when a company has lower operational costs their goods will cost less too.
Firefox
Lol. Sounds like a company joke gone wrong
i mean, if we look at a 1 year time scale of anything we can say there's a trend in any direction we want. that's why i'm looking at the trend starting from 2000s.
both can be true at once. they're increasing use of fossil fuels as well as solar and wind. here is a chart of their emissions.
they're trying to transition away with it with some success and some challenges, but painting a picture like they are environmentally friendly is inaccurate.
fair but if china is buying it at such a rate they are not shifting to clean energy. i don't think the supplier matters as much as the demand. and if 34% of emissions in the US are down but our energy usage hasn't gone down then that 34% is still the US producing less emissions either because there's less necessity or demand for it.
i mean, china produces more global emissions than the US totally. they produce less per capita but still. their percentage increase in global emissions since 2000 has been +223% while the US is down 34% in terms of emissions since 2000. subsidizing green energy would be good though.
i mean, if that's the case it sounds like a valid security concern. it doesn't make sense for the US to put themselves at a disadvantage in a potential war. but why would australia not also ban BYD considering they're a US ally? don't they also provide china more manufacturing that can be used in war?
the 250lbs woman is fatter :O
just google things that have dropped in price. there's been a few
my preference 🤩
you haven't really address that the US is already dominated by foreign brands though so it doesn't make sense to exclude china specifically unless there are other reasons beyond just keeping the US companies dominant. TryingToBeGood cited security concerns which i think is probably the more likely reason.
capitalism has had some examples of lowering costs in many sectors but also had increasing costs in other sectors. it isn't always an increase though.
basically they're going to try to maximize profit so they're going to do a business calculation. if there is a segment of the population, (lets say 30% of people for example) don't order an uber or food delivery because of the costs, and they can cut their costs by 40% per delivery by making cars self driving, they might lower costs for food delivery by $9 to get that 30% of people that are too price sensitive to use their service to become customers. i for one am one of those people that almost NEVER orders food delivery or ubers solely because of the cost. but if it went from $22 to $13 i might consider it. that's just an example and im making up numbers to demonstrate the point. there's always a business calculation when it comes to whether they lower costs or not. sometimes lower cost increases profit. when businesses make a new product or service usually when it's new that service is really expensive, and their main goal is cutting the cost so they can sell to the average consumer and have a huge market share rather than just selling to an elite few.
happens
walkabout cities dont really work with big outer neighborhoods and suburbs with single family homes on large plots of land, and those necessitate cars. personally i like living in the suburbs. that being said, if enough people want walkable cities they can build them. i personally prefer 15 minute drives more than 15 minute walks tho, lol.
well both can be true at once. a business that hires at $40 per employee with 10 employees is going to have to charge more than a business that hires $20 per employee with 10 employees, but regardless both are gonna to charge whatever is going to maximize their profits
Idc if its AI. I choose to believe this is real
Does this have to do with safety regulations or something? Like what is the reasoning behind it? Because I heard these Chinese cars dont have good safety regulations
i mean they're gonna charge whatever makes them the most profit regardless
they'll charge whatever's most profitable but if two self driving transportation companies are in competition with each other and they both want to dominate the market, one might set their prices lower than the other to steal the market share. the only way that wouldn't happen is with two monopolies agreeing to not undercut each other, which happens. but in general when a company has lower operational costs their goods will cost less too.