Gpt says that would require about 275 million steps on a magic rigid weightless stairway. Roughly 4.1 million calories. So at Phelps level energy expenditures you are still talking over a year of climbing every day.
You'd need to go to about 47km for the end of the stairs to reach escape velocity I think? Past geo. Was using 20% efficiency. Still something off there.
You are not hiking much in the mountains, are you? 1000m of elevation gain per day are no problem for a slightly out of shape sit-all-day programmer. Not sure how high up you want me to go, but given a high enough mountain (and a thick jacket and supplemental oxygen) and most people here can do that in a few weeks or months.
Definitely not, no. Credits on profits incentivize short term profit taking, while credits in products incentivize number of units shipped. The second is much better for society. Think about it from the perspective of a company deciding between selling low margin cheap EVs in the short term before process efficiencies kick in, or selling expensive EVs now.
It isn't a tax credit for making profits. It's a tax credit for making EVs. The reason there are credits for both consumers and manufacturers is that the manufacturer credits provide an incentive to build EV factories in the US, even if some of the cars are for export.
But we don't care about more profits, we care about more EVs. If you want to create an incentive to make EVs that are exported then you can make one, for example by subsidizing production equipment or by providing a per-unit sold refundable tax credit.
you're just circling back to the GP's last comment, without refuting that comment.
>Credits on profits incentivize short term profit taking, while credits in products incentivize number of units shipped. The second is much better for society.
They are, by definition, credits on profits made from selling EVs, and not from selling EVs. If Tesla made EVs without making a profit they wouldn't have received a penny.
They're credits against taxes. Since corporate income taxes are on profits, that implies that there would have to be some profits in order for there to be taxes to take the credit against, but that doesn't make them credits on profits. If they had made more profits without making more EVs, they wouldn't have gotten more credits. If they had made more profits but offset the taxes with some other credits then they might not have been able to use these, not because they didn't make enough profits but because they didn't pay enough taxes.
And this works the same for the consumer EV credits; you can't get them unless you were paying that much in taxes.
If your point is that non-refundable credits are stupid, yes. All credits should be refundable. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether they're credits for the manufacturer or the consumer.
Making the consumer credits non-refundable is actually worse, especially for the credits on used EVs. Because then you can't get the credit if you're unemployed or a student or otherwise don't make enough money to be paying the value of the EV credit in taxes, so it becomes a tax credit for the affluent that the poor aren't eligible for.
The idea is to stimulate both supply and demand. Credits for consumer only stimulate demand which may not be enough to compel literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CapEx, not to mention opportunity cost.
Consumer credits stimulate demand by increasing the cost consumers are willing to pay for a vehicle, shifting the demand curve, and greatly increasing the profitability in selling cars, provided it is done at scale. It can most definitely compell hundreds of billions of dollars of CapEx, and in many ways it's more effective than a tax break, because it will reduce losses if the venture never ends up being profitable (unlike a tax break which will only be worth it if the venture is eventually profitable, so there is less risk), and if it provides future market share through investments in the low end, especially in international competition, it can end up spurning more CapEx as it makes the more capital-intensive strategy more viable.
I don't understand why newbuild flats are obsessed with using so much glass. Almost everyone I see is being covered up, sometimes even with just cardboard.
Took the train to Amsterdam the other day, on the way there is an apartment building where the shared hallways are on the train-tracks side of the building, it's floor to ceiling glass. Some sections of it had cardboard or even aluminium foil to try and keep the sun / heat out, that one looked like a greenhouse.
Likewise, I work for an energy company, in summer the aging AC (which they keep low because an energy company's policy and marketing is actually the opposite of what they provide) cannot keep up because there's nothing keeping the sunlight out but flimsy shades on the inside.
Right, I think it's a continuation of the trend I'm seeing where everything is optimized for advertising and marketing. Essentially, everyday functionalities and practicalities are displaced in favor of fresh paint and shiny things.
I invested in automatic roller shades. It was expensive but worth it.
It's amazing and way better than traditional windows. Winter isn't anywhere near as depressing anymore. I can control the amount of light that comes in far more than someone with normal size windows.
Since the windows are new glass with multiple panes I notice very little difference in insulation performance.
I have a friend who bought a very expensive condo on the 20-something floor in one of those fadish^H^H^Htrendy floor-to-ceiling glass buildings. When I visited all I could say was "Gorgeous view. You're going to hate living here." And omfg does he in the summer.
