oo1

Unfoortunately, it says prices (presumably domestic) dropped though - that should be good for US consumers, all else equal.

I'd expect the people in Montana to have more/cheaper food in general at least in the short term. Farmers might make less profits, but even if they are making a short term loss - you'd expect them switch to a lower cost crop rather than stop production entirely.

In this case it is the Canadians that suffer lower food supply.

In the long run Montana food supply might suffer if their farmers struggle to get say fertiliser, pesticides, seed crops, bull semen, tractors and so on - that depends on their supply chain for those things.

Lower income might also impact the state's general ability to import other stuff, exotic foods and luxuries, but as far as domestic food is concerned I'd think they'd be ok.

Downvoted. For betrayal of dog commmunity.

My upstairs neighbour a few years ago had a similar thing going down into our back garden. She called it the catwalk.

If such an awful thing ever happpened to me in my personal life I'd change my needs.

In work of course I'm fucked, by stupidity rather than needs of course, but at least that's only for 37.5 hours a week.

Randal: Hockey's hockey. At least we got to play. Dante: Twelve minutes is hardly a game. Jesus, it's hardly even a warm-up. Randal: Bitch, bitch, bitch. You want something to drink? Dante: Yeah. Gatorade. Randal: Hey, what happened to all the Gatorade? Dante: Exactly! They drank it all!

Several hotel bars on Skye are effectively pubs.

Ireland is not a lake. Please fix this

TLDR - The use of notation is poor - I'd call it sloppy. His post would be much better (to me) without the example.

Most alarmingly he's written an inequality as an equality, and he's not really explaining the units / percentages at all. I think this type of thing is really unhelpful to people who struggle with maths and maths notation. It seems evident that the last reply's author does struggle and the example is part of their confusion, it certainly didn't help.

It makes me think he doesn't give a shit what he writes or about the audience. That makes me inclined to give no shits about it too. Either way this style of communication is all red flags to me - I guess thats why I avoid all this twittery in general.

Anyway, I guess I care enough to type a few more shits . . . I'm sure i've already put in way more thought than the OOP . . . I think he should have written something that spells out a bit more what is going on , and used an inequality, like:

• 100 - 100 x (10/100) != 90 + 90 x (10/100)
• 100 - 100 x (10/100) > 90 + 90 x (10/100)

Or:

• 100 - 100 x (10/100) = 90
• 90 + 90 x (10/100) = 99

As others have pointed out, in some contexts (like price indices) people convert time series data into indexes where 1 unit is referenced to: 100*1/(nominal reference price)

So for units defined as "percent of reference price", we d can use the simple expressions:

• 100 - 10 =90
• 90 + 10=100 (edited my own slop)

Some people might, also sloppily, refer to the 10 as a "percent change" as shorthand for the units. It is a percentage, but one should be clear percent of what.

If the context is more specifically weighted price indices then it can get more complex, but commentators may simply by saying "up by 10%", when it's really a more complex index value movement where the weightings can change. This all makes financial data in particular very confusing to those who struggle with maths, which is bad and it'd be nice if these things were communicated in a way that makes it as easy as possible for them.

"A new generation of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation robots and computers with the new GPP feature"

"GPP, what's that?"

"It says 'Genuine People Personalities'."

"Sounds ghastly"

Yes exactly, "Policing activity" will happen one way or another. It's the regulation, transparency, accountability that is used to weed out bad cops that is needed to make it beneficial to society.

Norwegians and Icelanders need to stop showing off all their hydro and low population density.

Most countires won't be able to scale up their electricity generation by like 20-50% or so (to accomodate a large switch of transportation energy) without burning a lot more fossil fuel. Or building many large nuclear plants. Or damming up and flooding several large valleys. Fossil fuel is still the cheapest fastest and easiest way to scale up electricity generation - and ramping up the duty cycle of existing power stations is the easiest in the short term.

Maybe if each EV came with enough additional solar and batteries to offset their electricity consumption (especially at peak). This'd increase the costs a fair bit but it'd make them much better for net greenhouse gas emissions.

Note that even in an era of fairly rapidly increasing renewables - from 1980s to now - the overall share of renewables in global electricity generation has not increased much, 25-30% ish last time I looked.

This is because new demand has always come along to offset the new renewable electricity generation. This will continue with electrification of transport, heating, plus all this ai and server farms and stuff, add in general population growth and economic development - I don't believe the world is going to be able to grow renewables anywhere near fast enough to keep up with all that. Not without some cold fusion type technology leap.

Tariffs don't "work" or "not work" it's not a binary outcome. Just as measuring "the economy" is pretty much impossible, so is attributing economic outcomes to one single feature of the regulatory environment, They interact with the rest of the economic environment and some variety or work, production, trade, investment and distribution will occur. Over time all aspects of the system will change, adapt and react. Most changes have winners and losers and they can be counted or balanced off differently.

It it were paired with bank regulation and asset ownership regulation and a coherent industrial strategy, maybe also forex controls, maybe some counter cyclical macroeconomic policy (extremely unpopular these days) the outcomes would likely be quite different from a low regulation free for "all". "All" is probably "a few with relatively unconstrained access to enough capital or credit to hoover up assets of the losers".

But then a smaller subset of those things might also change the outcomes on their own. Either way it would be a matter of time and adaptation of a complex system.

It also depends what you think the objective is before you understand "success" or "failure", the goals might well be social as much as economic. If the objective is trash the small scale asset ownig middle classes and enrich the elites economically then it might be working already.