I have seen this for a lot of people where I work and frankly I don't read those. If I offend you in some obscure way, fine tell me and I'll try to avoid it next time. But no I'm not reading your user manual first.
The quest for better fuel mileages also makes a big difference. Cars looks like jellybeans for aerodynamics. It’s also difficult to get a 6 cylinder engine compared to the past.
> It’s also difficult to get a 6 cylinder engine compared to the past.
Most of the V6's of the past were also garbage, so no loss there.
But there are still quite a few 6 cylinders out there, they just aren't necessarily cheap. Mercedes has a 3.0L V6 they love to stick in all their "midrange" AMGs for example (C43, GLC43, etc..), BMW still likes their I6 in for example the M3, Z4, and Toyota Supra. And of course Porsche still loves that flat 6 in the 911. There's also still a V6 for the Camry and a V6 Camaro among a few others.
What did mostly die is the "V6" as a generic "more power" upgrade for things like the Accord or most other midrange, midsize sedans. But the modern turbo I4s are so much better than those were, so it's not really a loss. And there's plenty of affordable V8s that are just fantastic as well.
So you don’t believe that worker productivity can increase? History disagrees. Do you invest your money or do you view that as somehow getting free lunch?
You usually pay up in order to receive increased productivity. It's not the result of some human evolutionary advancement. It's capex spending and modern managerial techniques, both of which cost money.
The energy density of a battery is so low though. That means a lot of capacity must be dedicated to batteries instead of cargo. Meaning you need more trucks.
Ironically, that's the sort of thing the USSR used to say to the US. Problem with the USSR? Just point out something equally bad about the US. Through that logic, until the rest of the world was perfect, the USSR could get away with anything.
Yeah but we don't take the approach of "well you ignored rules, therefore we can ignore rules as well" when it comes to our justice system. Criminals broke the rules, but they still get due process.
By quantized probability, I assume you mean something like "there is a minimal probability p for any possible event; if the probability we compute for some event is q < p, then that event is impossible".
If this is the right definition, then it's easy to disprove: for any p you chose, I can construct a series of events that each have probability q < p, but one of which is guaranteed to happen. This was the meaning of the examples I gave with the 10 thousand coins - the probability of any particular result after flipping the coins is extraordinarily small, and yet one of the results is guaranteed to happen.
Edit to add: to be clear, even if the universe itself were quantized, all measurable physical quantities, probability still wouldn't need to be quantized, as it's not a physical quantity, it's just a mathematical abstraction. Still, even in QM, not all physical quantities are quantized. For example, space (position) is not quantized in QM, and neither is time. They are both continuous quantities in all of the equations normally used. Planck time and Planck distance are only the shortest possible distances to measure precisely, given the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but that doesn't require them to actually be quantized. In contrast, the quantization of mass, energy, spin etc are actually necessary for the theory to work, they are not just measurement artifacts.
Why do you think this is a result of an unquantized wavefunction rather than due to the mathematical edifice we use to model it? It's not clear to me that things like the product rule for probabilities would still hold if you're not transforming and normalizing amplitudes.
Most East Asian countries have a huge advantage in labor cost. If they don’t have one now, they often did in the past during the ascent. That’s basically the definition of zero-sum. Yes, worker productivity increases over time, so the size of the pie grows, but how those gains are distributed is zero-sum. It’s not clear to me that growing your power, e.g. receiving more of the pie, somehow leads to you increasing productivity more later.
Have you heard of supply and demand? Suppliers have a price point at which their willing to supply a good. That price point is dependent on the input costs of producing the good. For knowledge workers, the input cost is your cost of living. It’s not so much that it “makes sense” to lower the salary of people in low cost of living areas, but it’s very likely the supply curve has shifted.
Paying employees more or less depending on where they live is an instance of price discrimination, in a sense. This isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it does mean that it’s not inevitable. Laws against certain forms of price discrimination already exist.
The typical use of price discrimination (or price segmentation) is when a seller of goods or services sells the same goods/services to entities that can afford to pay more at a higher price than to entities that can only afford to pay a lower price.
The objective is to maximize sales by getting more money from people who want to spend more money, while also getting some money from people who want to spend less money.
Offering people less money because you think they will accept less money because they are not likely to get a higher offer due to where they live is more accurately described as arbitrage.
No, it’s not more accurately described as arbitrage. Arbitrage involves buying something and then selling it for a higher price in a different market. That might describe something like a temp agency, which buys labor from employees and then essentially sells it to other companies. It does not describe most businesses, which directly use the labor provided by their employees rather than reselling it.
I agree that “price discrimination” isn’t quite right; it’s more of a metaphor. It works if you imagine that companies are selling money that is bought for the price of labor. In different markets, people will accept more or less money for the same labor, or equivalently spend less or more labor for the same money, which allows for price discrimination.
