Probably about as useful as not voting

Because one thing less useful than voting is not voting as a form of protest. And even less useful than that is encouraging others to do the same.

Voting one time may seem useless, but voting consistently in an informed direction and encouraging others to do the same ‘is’ useful. It’s just not obviously useful quickly.

The only thing useful about not voting is in the hope that things will fall apart more quickly and we can get to some good for collapse and rebuilding, but then what? Still don’t vote? Hope for a benign group that takes over and somehow does allow voting?

Not voting because it’s not a good harm reduction strategy is just another way of saying it won’t do any good so don’t bother.

If you are trying to present a nuanced argument against some specific reason ‘for’ voting, more power to you, but you are seriously coming across as a worthless bot put in place to recommend not voting wherever possible.

Still, go out and vote

Great point somewhat stated in the article, that AI is like an amplifier of talent, and that works both ways. Amplifying good skills is amazing, amplifying average skills is both good and bad. Amplifying poor skills can be catastrophic.

Like giving an experienced hunter a bigger gun might result in better outcomes or bigger game, but a bigger gun in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to weild it just results in bigger holes in things you didn’t want holes in in the first place.

Normally a novice programmer would break things incrementally, but a poor understand of coding plus AI can hose things exponentially in ways that look like they’re almost working every step of the way.

Just for some perspective, it’s not always about retaining facts and content. Reading a dozen books on a topic can have exponentially better comprehension on a topic than reading the same book a dozen times, even if you can’t remember a single fact from any of the dozens of books. Quality is more important, and exposure to different views will be better over time. Unless you find yourself not getting anything out of a topic in the subsequent books, in which case it may be worth the rereading tact.

Sounds more like a list of things someone might be rage baited into saying

The only way it makes any sense is if you did it quickly and sloppily.

If you were doing it quickly and to anything approaching a reasonable approximation of ‘your best’, then the teacher was just frustrated that the work was too easy for you any they hated seeing anyone getting a break but they saw no way to give you more work than the other kids. Most likely because they were too lazy to come up with a good tiered lesson plan.

Will!

Trouble is you can justify anything you want with the Bible.

Picking a fight with the guy most identified with have some direct line of information with the god of your constituents though?

That’s thinking of it way too much like an ideal one for one transaction. Insurance companies don’t based their profits on how much the stuff costs to replace directly, they make money based on the cost of payouts compared to premiums. If they can get enough clients to pay the premiums, they could pay 10x costs and it would make exactly 0 difference to their bottom lines.

It’s actually the reverse in many situations, insurance exists to help recoup costs in an emergency and if you have a policy that doesn’t pay enough to recover from a loss then you are underinsured, and the only way to ensure that is to buy a policy where you’re at least slightly over insured. That’s why homeowners insurance is based on replacement cost, not on the cost when you bought it.

Business insurance admittedly is different, but to be fully covered, you are also getting replacement costs for things like stale product, depreciated equipment (which depreciates differently for insurance purposes than for taxes and accounting) and things like building and infrastructure which are at replacement costs vs purchased prices.

Basically insurance companies are less concerned with having to make absolutely sure everyone gets as screwed as possible on every individual payout, than they are making sure they’re collecting premiums much faster than they are having to payout at all. Writing every policy so that no one ‘ends up with a plus’ is far less profitable than making sure they are selling policies that are useful. Of course they also want to pay out as little as possible, but that is not nearly as attainable as calculating the likelihood of risks and raising rates whenever possible.

Likely, but self insurance is a thing for a reason, if it was cheaper to insure than self insured they’d probably do that, but they have that risk wether it was arson or an accident and if one warehouse would actually hurt them, they wouldn’t be self insuring.

Any way you look at it, unless it hits them enough that they have to be concerned about the price of champagne they’re filling their swimming pools with, ‘one’ incident isn’t going to make them rethink their whole salary structure. At this rate it’s shifting from one budget line item to another, and they’ll probably just take it as an opportunity to invest in two warehouse to replace the one that went up.

They’ll miss it on some things for sure, but if there were sunk costs or put performing products, that money can be reinvested in better performing items. I’m sure I’m an active, perfectly running warehouse, having to replace every item just with an at cost payout would be annoying, but there’s also the possibility that the payout gets them out from under old stock they would otherwise have lost even their costs on.

Yes, but relatively often you can get underwater on the cost of stuff that is sitting there no longer making you money. If half your warehouse is full of stuff that isn’t moving or is outdated product, then recovering even the cost of making it can be a windfall. The amount of stuff a company has to write off, dispose of or clearance for pennies can make an insurance payout a win.

Things don’t always depreciate at their started number on paper, especially when using certain completely valid forms of accounting. Not saying this is certainly what is happening at an active warehouse, but there’s a whole lot more to it than thinking everything sitting there was absolutely going to sell at a good profit. Equipment and structures, for instance, often pay out at replacement value which can easily be more than you’d get for them at disposal rates.

Frank Zappa and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe not personally, but i really feel like there are some losses that the world doesn’t realize.

Sounds like you’re more familiar with the industry than i am, but my understanding is that insurance policies are written based on what you want to cover and the value is reflected in the premiums. Companies often have an assumed product, returns and stale inventory loss calculated in. Possibly just recuping costs for ‘all’ inventory could be a plus for the bottom line, especially if there were anything like a rider for opportunity costs. The building itself could have been out of step on depreciation and now moved up with a more modern facility in planning.

May not be the same situation but plenty of business owners have considered it a windfall having insurance pay out on replacement costs for things they you weren’t utilizing and an opportunity to put up a bigger shop and roll the payouts into more modern supplies and equipment rather than gathering dust on sunk cost stuff they never would have gotten their money out of otherwise.

Funny, if they weren’t already planning that, seems like an awfully knee jerk reaction based on a single incident.

Maybe, or maybe sales have been shitty and instead of product sitting on the shelves this let’s them write stuff off and pocket cost of materials.

Just saying there’s more to it than what it would mean to you or i if we had all our eggs in one basket and had to count on an insurance payout to keep above water. It’s likely not a windfall for them, but i wouldn’t be surprised if one warehouse fire is much more than a line item in a meeting or two, or even good news for some department or other if they were overextended in stock or something. A second or third big loss like that, though, would probably be required before anyone important is motivated towards any kind of inspection based on the bottom line though.

Certainly could be, and doubtful that they are fully insured against all contingencies… Possible they are underinsured against for intentionally, since they could conceivable think it’s low enough risk that it’s cheaper to allow a loss even as big as this to fall under operating losses for rare or occasional incidents like this.

Once a company is big enough even subjectively huge losses are simply a calculated risk. Do you pay a million dollars a year for 10 years to subsidize something that might cost 10 million dollars that only happens every 20 years, or do you bank on it not happening and write it off as a bad quarter if it happens?

Way more goes into those calculations than one might think, and if they’re self insured there’s just a budget item that takes a hit for this and someone gets chewed out it fired for being the one that gambled this way… While someone else loses a promotion if they signed off the other direction and paid for a million dollar policy they didn’t need.

Oh, for sure that’s part of the problem, they definitely have their own issues, but they are more like a layer. Insurance itself isn’t a bad thing, but like basically ever industry they suffer from greed and loopholes too.