From what I've already read and have been continuing to research, there are two major motions moving the markets today. Japan's yen was so heavily traded into USD for options and calls (and shorts), which now with their interest hike has them scrambling to cover the loans on foreign exchange. This is a big part of the selloff.
Secondly, there are swaths, and swaths, and swaths of debt that are due in short term, namely Q4 dependent (big lenders) and it is very unlikely they'll get paid. The credit markets are in shambles right now.
Good luck to all of us this is going to spread to all markets and due to US fear and panic, along with the political battles, this isn't going to end well any time soon.
If you leave things alone for a while, many non-renewable resources are surprisingly renewable on medium timescales. Forests will typically regrow, fishery stocks will come back.
This is the same as agreeing with the premise for opposing unconstrained population expansion. "Leaving things alone for a while" is not consistent with continued large population increase we've seen in last hundred years.
I have extensive knowledge in the restaurant arena, stemming from over 25 years of managing, owning, operating, and building restaurants.
This article is an absolute fluff piece aiming to tip a nodded hat at the industry as a whole - for maintaining the industry at its status quo.
Unfortunately, the restaurant industry has changed dramatically since 2020 (pandemic initiated). Cost, immutable variables between staff and guests, and likely most fundamentally - an industry unfit for a single entity to operate on his/her/there own.
Socio-economically the industry has suffered far more than other industries and continues to. Add in the decade long push in comfortability (delivery) and the break in social activities due to the pandemic, and the third space is no longer a safe, meal-sharing, getaway.
Dine-in, sit-down restaurants are going to continue to struggle until they regain their 'third space' appeal. In the meantime you can continue to purchase low-quality food, put up with terrible service, and pay extravagant pricing for delivery.
As for wages - the only reason this person has a comparable wage to an entry-level technical programmer is because Cane's is as large and funded as it is - combined with the current 'big boys' competition in the industry. Culver's, In'N'Out, Raising Cane's, and several others from large groups are the only competing brands at the moment in large retail spaces.
And as is usually the case this hails from California where pay scale outweigh most of the country save for the hot spots everyone knows.
This is targeted at the industry as a whole - it's not a reflection of the industry at all at it's current status.
We know so much and yet so little. The writing is in the article stating how mathematically they have no model, therefore they cannot truly understand it yet (researchers/academics).
This is true for climate change and it's own challenges along with many other applications of similar nature where models are incomplete or entirely missing large portions of data needed to further true understanding of a given process.
As is common in physics, a subject can be extremely well studied, theories can be produced, models can be created that predict future behaviour incredibly precisely, but because we can’t poke it hard enough or with enough precision the exact underlying mechanism remains unconfirmed.
It is naive of humans to believe we can accurately model something we cannot measure against. Until a time machine enables someone to vastly scale back climate data, we have a huge missing gap and continually rely on the short term models for association, whereby those models are a collaboration of data collected over roughly 400 years. The last 250 are better statistically and the last 50 are exceptionally accurate.
But to levy them upon data extrapolated without correlation is where science falls short. You can surmise the corroboration between soil, ice, and methane samples as well as biological data from the eons; but piecing together a picture is more akin to believing the extremely faint stars you see in the night sky - are still there.
We tend to believe what is in front of us not realizing that change is happening all around us, every moment, every microsecond. Nothing ever stays the same. This is true of climate change as it is humans.
The debate on what to do about change and how much humans have potentially and/or are contributing is an entirely different discussion. With technology perhaps we'll coalesce. It is otherwise far more likely that the planet and the cosmos could make it so we can't.
It's not clear to me what you're attempting to convey.
Those in applied math are pretty clear about what can and can't be modelled.
The majority of people I've met understand that almost nothing is stationary, the planet moves about the sun which moves about a galactic core which in turn moves through the universe all the while as molecules vibrate within various forms of matter.
The first part implies that we cannot model something we don't have a good picture of. The data collected for climate modeling scaling back millennia first, then on to the decem mil; etc. Going back an aeon it becomes even more unsubstantiated.
The second part implies that while certainly many in academia and beyond are fully aware of our constant change, we tend to lend society a belief that time stands still. Same as it ever was, the moon follows the sun, the north star is essentially stationary. These types of conventional take generally wreak havoc in large scales.
And if we naive humans know anything worth knowing at all, we certainly know our perception of large scales lacks in enormous context.
This again leads me to believe that we as humans have not and may not evolve past the |individual| and breach the theoretical line between what is good for one (me) and what is good for all (everyone).
Only when we as humans evolve our philosophy of existence in a manner which puts our continuity above all else, will we progress to our next universal evolutionary jump.
Until then only modest progress will continue slowly understanding limitations of physical matter (resource depletion and renewing), social strife churning at a snail's pace (the entire world is uneven at many levels socio-economically), war among ourselves will continue (instead of protection from outside or unknown source, we force offensive military campaigns to manage more of the above), and lastly academia has been inundated with the likes of Catholic Hereticism in the likes of Galileo style subjection.
We're nowhere close to evolving as a species on the whole. Combined with the perceived ideology that (right now especially), rigid frustration abounds in various social, work and familial circles simply due to the nature of our current macroeconomics. It's unfathomable to me that the grander picture is always blurred to the current state of existence.
The cost over time generally tends to weigh heavily on the initial budget. Small reactors don't replace large ones for large needs, even if multiple are built (this hasn't even happened yet!).
What small ones can do is afford either government/public/private energy sources in localized areas. Infrastructure was built upon technology stacked on top of previous; dirt to stone, stone to asphalt, and on; etc.
The same is inherent with nuclear. It is easy to tie in to the existing grid, but the grids are extremely out of date for the growth of populations in general.
A large mix of SMR's could absolutely fuel energy needs in both the short and long term as technology continues to improve. The cost is a metric of current economics/interest. That's the problem right now - perspective states it's unaffordable because we've pivoted it that way.
Suggestion: (to video maker)
1. Leave the design open source, create a second design (more efficient/whatever you think defines the declaration of value).
2. Package second design parts together for sale and let the public purchase so they can run around and find disposable vapes and make their own.
3. Profit.
No need for steps 4 and 5. (Rinse & Repeat new models).