I 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?
deleted by creator
I think that just shows you don’t understand how to read statistics.
That’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
We 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.
Publish date “2019” ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn’t anymore.
The methodology of this study isn’t very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with “personal responsibility”.
Overall what a waste of my time.
Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.
Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized
Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.
Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.
Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)
The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.
Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…
I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.
I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.
But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory… In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it “what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying” and you would want a response.
I’m not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that’s roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.
What?
What projections are you looking at? It is a few cherry picked ones? Generally the projections going back to the 80s are in line with what’s actually happening, if anything they were optimistic.
Even if you don’t agree with projection or that we’re actually in-line with them, the correlation between carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature isn’t disputable anymore.
Well of course not. These game studios were selling games at 60-80$ each. Microsoft bought them, then started providing the all the games for a flat fee of 15$ per month.
I assumed their strategy was to lose money in the medium term while they worked on getting people used to playing games on subscription. Where they make their money back is when they stop outright selling games at full price and make them only available on subscription, and then they slowly start increasing that monthly subscription cost.
In order for that to work they need a large library and like 5-10 years.
I’ve never viewed getting rid of plastic bags as a carbon saving measure. To me it’s addressing how bad they are when they get into the environment. As much as these bags can be reused, most aren’t and they just end up thrown out.