• 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle


  • You’re also making the implicit and incorrect assumption that this assumption of future income is not already the status quo. It is. The IRS already does this with your automatic withholding. It just does it at a higher level than necessary, due to what I mentioned above. Withholding basically assumes that a person will continue to earn whatever their paycheck was in every future payment period (weekly, semimonthly, whatever).

    Your assumptions on how this would be dealt with are not realistic. The outlines of how to implement this not only already exist, they are already used and have been used for decades. All the IRS needs to do is glue together its knowledge of your income sources and lower the withholding amount based on being able to predict an individual’s income far more accurately.

    Data on seasonal income is known too, for the record. Consistent trends in income changes with parts of the year are not a surprise to the government agencies that care about it.


  • For the majority of people out there, all their income is going to have digital records. A cash only store still deposits money in a bank, after all. For the people that don’t… chances are their income without a digital footprint isn’t being reported, and is small enough that no one is worried about that in the first place.

    If the IRS is being told by a person’s work how much they’re paid, by their bank how much interest they got, by any Etsy-esque services how much they were paid… then the IRS has every bit of information it needs to get automatic withholding correct.

    Right now withholding systems default to taking too much money out, because it’s easier for the government to send you money than it is for them to request money from you. It also avoids the headache of most people being hit with surprise IRS bills. The IRS could keep that default, and then as the year goes on it could shift that withholding down until it’s laser close. The negative there is that variability is bad for budgeting too, but with some work they could make it start close enough that it shouldn’t be all that variable.


  • The report gives a quick summary of what they include, but not any details or math.

    The cost of underlying energy (gas, diesel, electric)
    State excise taxes charged for road maintenance
    The cost to operate a pump or charger
    The cost to drive to a fueling station (deadhead miles)

    Elsewhere it says it assumes 12k miles in a year and is focused on the midwest and Michigan in particular. As it so happens, Michigan charges for registration based on the car value. EVs cost more than ICE vehicles in the same market segment most of the time. This would fall under excise taxes that they include.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they also tacked on the cost to install a L2 charger once as “cost to operate a pump or charger” — intentionally ignoring that it’s a one-time fee to support EVs at a home. With those two data points they could easily add >$1000 to the cost to “charge” an EV for one year if that is what they wanted to do.

    The people making the report clearly picked criteria that sounds reasonable but also intentionally misleads people. Not a surprise.







  • I can’t read the article but I think they’re making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

    BEVs were nigh impossible to purchase a year ago. Tesla’s MSRPs were ~$10k higher than they are today, not even accounting for the tax credit. Other manufacturers were seeing dealer markups of $10k+ on a new BEV. Demand for BEVs went through the roof as (1) supply chain effects meant the price difference between ICE and BEV went down, and (2) Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices way up. A 350% jump over last year doesn’t mean much in that light — what inventory even existed on dealer lots last year?

    Both of those factors have faded. EVs are still selling well, but manufacturers are going to need to find more ways to lower prices in order to stay competitive and to keep demand up.



  • Fixed costs isn’t the cost of having a single server with the storage. I’m thinking everything they need to have built up with the intent of having between N1 and N2 MAU, in order to make that viable.

    It’s the cost of developing the software stack, of hiring the lawyers and accountants that (1) acquire the music rights and (2) handle the music payouts, it’s the lawyers that handle the different legal requirements across every major global economy, it’s the servers located in all of those countries with as many sub-national locations as necessary, it’s the IT staff that manage that server uptime, it’s the software developers that maintain that system and improve upon it so rivals don’t jump too far ahead… Etc.

    Building a streaming platform that expects to have multiple billions of dollars in revenue across hundreds of millions of users is going to have enormous fixed costs that cannot be trivially scaled down if user counts are lower. If they plan around a much lower user count they can scale it down at that planning phase, but not after the fact (at least not easily).


  • Streaming services have an enormous amount of fixed costs. It might cost them several billion dollars/year to operate the necessary infrastructure even with zero customers, but the marginal cost to serve a customer might be on the order of $2/month on that $10/month subscription.

    It’s why streaming and digital storefronts are such a sink/swim industry. Either a company gets over user number+sales threshold to override their fixed costs, upon which they become profitable and all further growth makes them exceedingly profitable. Or the company fails to do so or barely does so, and makes somewhere between giant losses to minimal profits.

    From a quick search, Spotify’s user count should have grown somewhere in the neighborhood of ten times over since 2015.

    This is not a cost increase that is mandated or justified by inflation. It never is. It’s a cost increase from a very, very, very simple fact: companies want profit, and Spotify’s leadership has concluded that they will gain more profit by increasing prices than they will by not doing so.


  • You’d be surprised at how many fabs there are in the US.

    • TI has something like a half dozen to a dozen, predominantly in Texas
    • Intel has more fabs than you can shake a stick at, mostly in Oregon but also Arizona
    • Samsung has a fab in Texas
    • GlobalFoundries exists in New York and Vermont
    • Micron is in Idaho
    • Wolfspeed has power electronics fabs in North Carolina and New York

    And so on. The US has a lot of fabs. For best countries in the world to build a new fab, the US would rank somewhere between first and third place — and I think there’s a strong argument for the answer being “first place.” Unlike Taiwan and South Korea, US fab jobs and experience are not almost entirely dominated by one or two companies. The US isn’t located in one of the most geopolitically risky parts of the developed world. The US has a huge population and plenty of money to put into fab expansion.

    The only issues here are (a) the US has gotten worse and worse at large scale construction projects, and (b) TSMC wants to pay workers like shit and treat them even worse, which doesn’t fly for technically skilled US workers. You can treat US technical workers workers poorly, but not as poorly as in much of Asia, and you definitely cannot do it without paying them very well.


  • As a vegetarian myself, I’ve thought about this a little bit.

    I think it ultimately boils down to the fact that going vegan requires a lot more work from an individual. Avoiding meat might be a pain in the ass to implement at times, but the actual intellectual process is straightforward. You need to watch out for soup stocks, cheeses with rennet, and meat sauces basically. Everything else, at least in my experience, is obvious. Converting a recipe to vegetarian doesn’t require too much thinking. A lot of foods are just innately vegetarian and won’t be labelled as such: there aren’t “vegetarian pancakes” or “vegetarian pies” out there — they’re just expected to be vegetarian unless someone made a meat version. Only a small handful of pizzas will be labelled vegetarian even though most are or trivially can be made such. It’s easier to find/adapt recipes that are vegetarian compatible.

    Going vegan is just a full extra process. Eggs, milk, butter aren’t visually obvious. Even bread isn’t certain to be vegan-friendly. The ingredients being removed from a recipe cannot be simply removed, especially with baked goods, without risking the entire recipe becoming a disaster. If you take a cookie recipe and remove the eggs and butter, you’re going to be disappointed; you need to find a recipe designed from the ground up to not use eggs or butter.

    The extra restrictions on vegans mean they need to be much more specific about their foods than vegetarians.



  • On the timescale of 27 years, grid-scale storage is going to be a complete non-issue. There’s already a decent amount of work being done at that level right now and battery tech has been improving at a consistent pace. Renewables can work quite well as-is with a good mix of location and source. Offshore wind is more consistent wind speeds, solar locations can mitigate light cloud coverage, solar output peaks during the times of greatest human use, and land based wind is typically dispersed over large areas.

    I’m a huge proponent of nuclear power, but as things stand it isn’t going to be necessary on these time tables. The value in nuclear is that it’s another thing we can build now without needing to wait ten years for battery prices to continue to decline or for manufacturing capabilities to ramp up. Building 10 GW of nameplate capacity wind+solar is great. Building 10 GW of nameplate wind+solar and 5 GW of nameplate nuclear is better! That’s the advantage of nuclear today, and we should fucking make use of it. That doesn’t make it mandatory in the long-term.


  • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world3nm Zen 5 by 2024?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d expect Zen 5 in 2024. AMD has been on a decently consistent release schedule for Zen CPUs.

    Zen 1: Mar 2017
    Zen+: April 2018 (+13 months)
    Zen 2: July 2019 (+15 months)
    Zen 3: November 2020 (+16 months)
    Zen 4: September 2022 (+22 months)

    Lots of clustering around ~15 months, with Zen 4 as the major exception. Zen 4 had to run through the whole pandemic supply chain gauntlet to get released, which explains most of that delay to me. Especially since the supply chain issues hit semiconductors hardest. In theory that’d put Zen 5 in early 2024, but I’d guess somewhere from late spring through early fall.

    I want to know when the 3D cache variants of Zen 5 are coming out. I built a good Zen 3 system about a year before those were available. Don’t feel like I can justify the expense of going to a 5800X3D when I already have a 5800x, but I’d love to have the 3D cache. Once the Zen 5 versions are out I hope to make a new system around that.


  • I doubt anyone will complain if Blizzard’s games are brought to other storefronts too.

    I like Steam. Steam has the best features, best UI, good sales, and while they are not without faults (systems can stay unchanged for a long time!), they are run by a company that by and large respects its userbase.

    I don’t mind if games are brought to Steam and any or all other storefronts. Put it on GOG, Windows Store, EGS, Itch.io, battlenet, Origin, Uplay… You name it, I approve of it going there also. If those other storefronts want me to use them, they need to provide a comparable or superior experience. GOG comes the closest, but its inability to get games in a timely or predictable manner, if at all, is too much of an obstacle for me.