Both. Though the company providing them has larger pockets so they will likely get the larger share.
There is long legal precedent for you have to do your best to stop your products from causing harm. You can cause harm, but you have to show that you did your best to prevent it, and your product is useful enough despite the harm it causes.
> Of course, their punishments would just be fines they can afford to pay and continue operating as before, if history is anything to go by.
Where there are some examples of this. Very often companies pay the fine and because of fear that the next will be larger they change behavior. These cases are things you never really notice/see though.
I think there is probably a healthy subset of people on here who take Uber etc. all the time. I, on the other hand, maybe take it a half-dozen times a year (plus some private cars to the airport).
I'd love a really good driver assistive system for my car (ala FSD today) but I likely wouldn't actually get driven around a lot more unless the economics were more compelling than seem likely anytime soon.
For most people the economics won't every work out. Uber/Taxis make sense if you only need them a few times per year. However even if the driver is free, if you are using your car daily as most people do it won't work out.
People who yell "share" forget that most people are driving during rush hour, and so the car will be idle the rest of the day anyway. As such there isn't that much money to save by sharing a car.
I don't think anyone doubted the story. The details might be questionable, but the basics that he tried to fight with elephants is highly likely. We have plenty of sources for War Elephants in his time, so the idea that he didn't have them would be the larger surprise if someone could prove that.
> but the basics that he tried to fight with elephants is highly likely. We have plenty of sources for War Elephants in his time, so the idea that he didn't have them would be the larger surprise if someone could prove that.
Just to add to your point: Many many cultures have used elephants in their armies, so the only real bone of contention (oh god I do love my puns) would have been that Hannibal was using them on the European continent.
> with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.
Only if they are. Some pensions are well managed. Some are not. Some seem well managed for years, but in fact they are not. Some have been well managed for a long time, but someone incompetent gets in power. Can you tell the difference.
Oh, and if you can tell the difference, can you convince everyone else and thus get this fixed? Or will voters be happy with the mismanagement because it is returning great results now on low investment leaving more money to spend on other things now?
In the worst case no pension (either personal/private or public) is better than a pension. At least if you have no pension you got to use/spend your money today - it didn't go to whatever the corrupt pension manager did with your money.
Before pension reform in the US I had some distant relative who was laid off 3 months before his planed retirement when the company went bankrupt - it then came out the pension he was counting on was entirely invested in the now worthless company stock. This is the real risk you need to worry about if you have any form of pension.
In principle defined contribution plans should be a good way to split the difference, although I recognize that it's a lot harder politically to make them mandatory than it is for pension contributions.
The question is who is managing the pension. Defined contributions can be a really bad deal if you can't control who is managing the money.
The other major problem with contribution is you don't know when you will die. If I'm going to die at 65 like some relatives I should retire at 50, but if I'm to live to 97 in great health like others I should wait a few more years. (family history says my expected lifespan is about 80, but it follows a statistical curve ranging between 65 and 95 - just like nearly everyone else in a "first world" country). I want a system that acounts for how long I will live and my health and ensures I have plenty of money - group pensions should be really good at that.
When economists were worried about "savings gluts", to decrease savings demand they advocated for things like government funded pensions.
If you read some of the literature out on China and their anomalous savings rate (household consumption is only 40% of national income) studies show that the lack of a social safety net exacerbates the problem and savings rates decline once you have the safety net.
One difference they noticed was the dramatic decline in savings rates as you go from rural to urban areas. In urban areas you have a different social safety net -- a government pension, but in rural areas the pension is optional and savings rates are dramatically higher. Because much social spending in China is handled at the provincial or city level and there are differences, it is a natural laboratory for these types of studies. It's also why you need a citizenship document when trying to "emigrate" into a city or different province, and there are internal controls that limit what city you can be registered in, which also affects things like car registration, real estate purchases, and access to local education in the city for people that are considered "migrants" - e.g. they physically live in the city but do not have enough points to be registered there.
I feel this in my own life. From well before my working years I had a message ingrained into me: “Do not count on social security to be around when you retire.”
It’s probably not all so drastic as that, but for me (and many other American millennials) my financial ethos has been squarely centered on saving and making hay while the sun shines. Compound that over 300M people and multiple generations and you do get overly deep and inflated capital markets.
As genX this was my experience too. The numbers have been clear for decades, SS is unlikely to be a great option by the time anyone working today gets it. (including people who retire in a month). Generally I think there will be SS when I'm old - but it will barely be enough to live on. I'm trying to save money so I can not only eat but also do other things I enjoy [that cost money] when I retire.
I know many women who admit they "fall in love" anytime they hear a low bass. They might marry a tenor and never cheat on them, but every time their hear a low bass their heart flutters. Men know/see this and so tenors become less interested since their higher voices don't get the women (there are plenty of other ways they have).
Anecdotal I guess, but when I was in a high school choir, I loathed that my teacher assigned me to the tenor section. It did not fit with the image of myself that the high school version of me held in my head; "a man should be a baritone or bass after puberty!"
I liked choir and stayed in it for all four years, but I was never particularly good at it so what the hell did I know anyway.
"average bass steals all the love interests" factoid actually just statistical error. average bass steals 0 love interests per year. John Tomlinson, who steals 10,000 paramours per year, is an outlier and should not have been counted.
There is only so much time in a day. Often singing in choir conflicts with playing sports because you have concerts and games on the same nights, so you have to make a choice. There are also schedule pressures - if you are going to get into college you nearly have to take math, English, science, and foreign language classes beyond what your school demands and that forces hard choices if there even is a class period free (don't forget you might be taking band to take up that space)
Finally, there are a lot of bad teachers. They are so interested in winning competition and teaching perfection - but for most music will never be anything other than a fun hobby and so they are getting the wrong teaching which turns many students off. I've seen a lot of award winning school choirs, and the next town over with the same number of students has twice the students in choir despite not winning awards - communities need to pick and often don't realize this.
In my secular chorus, we may have two main performances per season, but we rehearsed together for 2 hours every single week for months. We purchased polo shirts, and there was a dress code. Our dues covered operating costs and sheet music. Being a civic group for casual singers, our costs were kept low, but many choirs travel, double down on the costumes, and many people find it requires a high level of dedication, free time, and independent wealth. It is no coincidence that many members are retirees!
In church, a lector could prepare for 30 minutes and have a 5 minute speaking part at the Mass. The ushers and EMHCs also have part-time gigs. While altar servers are on duty for the entire service, they do not need to rehearse every single week. A church choir may serve for one or more weekend services, plus the 90-120 minute weekly rehearsals, and that's not counting holy days, Easter, Christmas. If you take a role as cantor, director, or piano/organ, expect to become indispensable! Some families just found it easier to join en masse so they could stay together.
Some chorus members are also secretly voice coaches, so if you protest "but I can't sing tenor" they may lovingly tackle you and sell you a package of private lessons.
I found it difficult to serve in any other ministry alongside choir, and you may find it difficult to hold down a job and/or family alongside a secular chorus role. As I said, high demand/great rewards.
There is long legal precedent for you have to do your best to stop your products from causing harm. You can cause harm, but you have to show that you did your best to prevent it, and your product is useful enough despite the harm it causes.
reply