Try "killall -STOP photoanalysisd", this will pause the process instead of killing it (which would result in restarting it by launchd). You can unpause it by using "-CONT".
California has the most progressive taxation scheme of any state. Dividends and capital gains are taxed as income. I’m curious what you would consider “sufficient” taxation - the top marginal combined rate for a Californian is over 50%.
Amazon’s capex is not funded by venture capital. It is funded by people buying things from Amazon or services from AWS.
Uber hasn’t raised from VCs in years, and their business is far bigger than it was back when they were losing money.
The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong - Uber is much more expensive than BART, and with some notable exceptions for shared rides, that was true during the VC funded growth period as well.
It doesn't matter the source of the capital. VCs, public companies, bank loans, public or private investors. it doesn't matter.
The cost of these services is artificially suppressed to drive adoption, at the cost of our environment.
> The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong
When I lived in SF. Uber and Lyft cost between free and $5 to go anywhere in the city. Yes, $5 is more than the $2.75. But for price of a cup of coffee more, Uber would pick you up and drop you off exactly where you needed. Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking.
> Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking
Exactly.
Uber makes a lot of money these days. The price is not suppressed. And yet... it is more popular than ever. Prices were artificially low for awhile in order to bootstrap the market, and that worked, and now that the market has been established, prices are at a level that is sustainable. Your whole premise is wrong.
It’s so weird that you’re like agreeing with me but then at the very end you say my promise is wrong. Can you pick a lane?
Currently prices are artificially low for AI in order to boot shop the market. Artificially low prices increase demand which increases environmental impact.
If you rewind the clock to an Uber launched in San Francisco you would see the exact same playbook: artificially low prices, bootstrapping the market, increase demand, and increase environmental impact.
> The mistake the EU made was to not foresee the madness used to make these decisions.
It's not madness, it's a totally predictable response, and all web users pay the price for the EC's lack of foresight every day. That they didn't foresee it should cause us to question their ability to foresee the downstream effects of all their other planned regulations.
Interesting framing. If you continue this line of thought, it will end up in a philosophical argument about what kind of image of humanity one has. So your solution would be to always expect everybody to be the worst version of themselves? In that case, that will make for some quite restrictive laws, I guess.
People are generally responsive to incentives. In this case, the GDPR required:
1. Consent to be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous and as easy to withdraw as to give
2. High penalties for failure to comply (€20 million or 4 % of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher)
Compliance is tricky and mistakes are costly. A pop-up banner is the easiest off-the-shelf solution, and most site operators care about focusing on their actual business rather than compliance, so it's not surprising that they took this easy path.
If your model of the world or "image of humanity" can't predict an outcome like this, then maybe it's wrong.
> and most site operators care about focusing on their actual business rather than compliance,
And that is exactly the point. Thank you. What is encoded as compliance in your example is actually the user experience. They off-loaded responsibility completely to the users. Compliance is identical to UX at this point, and they all know it. To modify your sentence: “and most site operators care about focusing on their actual business rather than user experience.”
The other thing is a lack of differentiation. The high penalities you are talking about are for all but of the top traffic website. I agree, it would be insane to play the gamble of removing the banners in that league. But tell me: why has ever single-site- website of a restaurant, fishing club and retro gamer blog a cookie banner? For what reason? They won’t making a turnover you dream about in your example even if they would win the lottery, twice.
The data is provided by ICE in terms of financial years (FY), so I’m showing the most recent FY 2025. But they do have back to FY2019 on their site, and I plan to add that historical data soon!
A plurality of those are in Texas, as well. I used to say, someone in the US is more likely to die in a car wreck in Texas even if they never go to Texas, that's how skewed they make the statistics. But I stopped looking at the stats a few years ago so I stopped saying and defending that. It's just a new lens to view this information through.
Texas has a plurality of fatal car accidents (for USA), but California is not far behind, and in 2022 California has slightly more deaths. (This page doesn't have the number of fatal car accidents for 2022, which is a bit odd.)
You're not looking at absolute numbers, which is what plurality means. I don't see how "someone in the US is more likely to die in a car wreck in Texas even if they never go to Texas" could make sense.
A driver in the US dies while driving due to a crash/wreck/whatever.
Statistically, that occurred with the highest probability in TX. as i said, this was like 2015-2019 when i used to claim this. There's a sign on freeways in TX that say "highway deaths so far in <year>: <16 bit int>" which led me to start looking in to it, and i think my little quip is just a way to draw attention to how dangerous it is to drive in TX. But it is quite large, Texas.
Car wrecks are correlated with all kinds of things from education to poverty and Mississippi is dead last or tied for last in every dimension of quality of life.
also the roads outside of the interstates and US highways are pretty awful, in my (limited) experience driving in MS. one time we had to brake from 60 because a cow was on a bridge over an interstate.
While true, you overstate the problem. Look up the companies in the S&P 500 today, 10 years ago, 20, 30, 50. There are dramatic changes with only a handful of long term survivors.
That overstates the difference as mergers hardly destroy the old companies in their entirety.
Instead it’s the same kind of shakeups you regularly see in government agencies. Picking one small example, HERSA is a merger of the Health Services Administration (1973–1982) and Health Resources Administration (1973–1982). However currently one of its major functions is managing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program that showed up in 1990.
That really depends on what you mean by churn. Lower levels of government are less stable than major corporations. Walmart stores don’t regularly all randomly shut down for a few weeks due to someone being unable to decide on a budget etc.
I’ll grant you it’s really different kinds of instability though.
A merger frequently involves major shakeups in both the acquirer and the acquired. You don’t have to, and shouldn’t destroy the old companies. You just want their resources redirected to more efficient uses every so often.
Yea, the "too big to fail" principle needs to just go. Corporations should be prevented from becoming so big in the first place. There must be a limit on the revenue generation - once you cross a number, you should be broken up.
Humongous companies just become national-level power brokers adversely affecting both the government and the free market.
Monopolies have a bone to pick with you. They aren’t generally garbage collected as their wealth becomes self-perpetuating even in the face of inefficiencies as they can continue to raise prices and push others out.
This was true during the gilded age and it’s become true again. It took systematic regulations, unions, welfare, and the Sherman antitrust act.
If it wasn’t for a democratic government the oligarchs would still have been in control. They are corrupting the current institutions thought the DOGE coup. You see this in the self dealing of the billionaires such as Musks contracts as well as the tariff exemption grift.
So please don’t flaunt a free market as a natural solution to inefficient systems, not even Adam Smith believed that.
> Totally false. The benefits go to anyone who buys or sells goods that pass through the ports.
Mostly true. Only if there is huge competitive pressure will the prices be forced to go down. Otherwise, those owners simply make more profit now and keep prices the same.
With ports, you don't have much competitive pressure because a competitor can't just another mega-port next to the existing one, there is no such space available.
If that is true, then what stops port operators from raising prices from their present level and pocketing the free money? In reality, demand curves slope down and the surplus from efficiency improvements is split between buyers and sellers. And with the lower costs that result from efficiency improvements, ports will be able to move more goods per unit of time. Even with the unrealistic assumption that the surplus is entirely captured by the port operators, buyers and sellers of goods will benefit from the increased volume.
> If that is true, then what stops port operators from raising prices from their present level and pocketing the free money?
They do raise prices, gradually.
But raising prices is harder because users complain in many ways. Keeping prices the same while reducing your costs (thus improving profits) is much easier, nobody notices.
Only if the automation is cheaper and more efficient and that improvement/saving gets passed on to the (un)loading fees and then to the companies doing the transport and then to the marketplace middlemen and then then to the buyers/sellers.
In my opinion, port costs never go down with automation. If anything, they go up when automation is deployed (this essentially means unmanned reach stackers, more cranes and eventually new TOS (Terminal Operating System) to compensate investment.
This is interesting document (PDF) with port performance index for 2023. Page 11.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0990603241145396...
Only if the dock owners reduce the price of unloading goods, but why would they when they could just pocket the savings from firing everyone? It's not like there is much competition.
You're operating under the assumption the cost savings are passed onto consumers. I see no reason why this would be the case - the cost savings would do much better as expansion of capital, and consumers are already happy with the current price.
Yes, and buying stuff got worse over the years, not better. The consumer is not benefiting from this to begin with (as if thars an argument to not pay your labor).
Is this the trickle down argument again? Are there still people around honestly believing it? Even Wikipedia says there's zero proof, but nice to peek at the last century fads once in a while.
Unlikely because the "trickle down" argument doesn't exist as a positive policy. It is where the opponents of a policy argue that it won't work because the value will accrue to the wealthy.
In this case the original argument was that capital investments at the port will create value to the port users. It is likely correct - if the port invests in robots then it is extremely reasonable to expect that users of the port will get cheaper and better service. The port owners might make more money or they might get squeezed by economics, that part is much harder to work out.
