What a terrible graph. Market share as a percent on one side being compared to absolutely numbers on the other.
The author could draw any conclusions they wanted by just scaling the axis differently.
- 3 Posts
- 218 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 4th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·16 hours agoI looked it up and it seems like the survival rate of new businesses is about 78% in the US.
The first year seems to be the hardest and each year after that survival rates get better and better.
This data suggests that after 10 years nearly 35% of business are still in business.
How many new business fail?
111·10 days agoThat’s not a reasonable assumption at all. Everything costs more today than it did 2 years ago, so it’s very likely their expenses are higher than it was before.
It’s also possible that their profits are way up, but the data you showed doesn’t prove that at all.
That image shows revenue not profit
1·20 days agoWe don’t need to even do the math ourselves. It’s already be done countless times and the results are always the same.
BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
I’m surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.
What? You’re the one claiming that various metals aren’t infinitely recyclable.
It’s true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.
Current recycling technology doesn’t really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.
I’m just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn’t need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it’s useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you’re being downvoted.
Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.
I can’t get over this. We’re talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you’re talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that’s what makes sense.
Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that’s it’s my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.
Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.
Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that’s not because they aren’t recoverable, that’s because it’s not currently financially feasible to recover it all.
And that’s just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren’t great at reading either. So I’ll ask it again.
What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?
Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.
Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.
Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it’s gone.
Dental care, housing deals with cities and the fall back carbon pricing were all done dispite provincial pushback (as far as I’m aware).
The only one where they worked with the provinces was the daycare, and that took like 18 months for provinces to actually agree on and even today provinces like Ontario continue to drag their feet on.
From what I’ve seen over the last 3-5 years, the provinces have very little interest in actively working constructively with the feds.
I don’t know what the current status of the healthcare chats are, but a few years ago the feds were willing to help push additional funding into the provincial healthcare systems, but the provinces needed to agree to terms (I believe the terms were around the money needing to be spent on the public healthcare system and not working towards privatization). as far as I know the talks never went anywhere, and healthcare systems are still underfunded.
What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn’t stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces
2·1 month agoSure it shouldn’t be used like this. But incrementing a number isn’t enough to steal someone’s identity.
Isn’t it the address being leaked with it that makes this notable?
You can’t add a number to a SSN and also add a number to the street address to then narrow down which full names are associated with that SSN to then possibly be able to use it.
I didn’t think the number had any use on its own
Were billions given upfront for this project? Most of the battery/EV projects I saw were mainly tax breaks.
To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it’s the lower tax rate.
In places like Ontario we “double dip” on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.
When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it’s a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.
None of this refutes what was said above.
Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.
I’ve also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.
Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I’ve done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.
This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.
Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.
When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don’t have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it’s own it can’t correct for the extra spent per person.
I would almost want a “government revenue” per “wholesale/retail value” or maybe multiple numbers where it’s “government revenue” per “liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc” and then compare those in both markets.
Because that’s truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.
Any one who assumes that another party is going to blanket support a non-confidence vote doesn’t understand how minority governments work.
These are times when other parties have the leverage to influence what bills are being passed.
If things got bad enough that no other parties agreed with direction then ya we would be heading to vote, but realistically things aren’t that bad right now, they could always be better, but it’s not bad enough to just throw away leverage.