I think it's more likely they want to leave the impression that this is all caused by "far right" anti-vaxxers and not a religious group with roots that go back hundreds of years.
Just the fuck you rich, I'm buying a football team for a laugh human beings. Not that Warren would necessarily buy a football team for laugh, but that "kind".
The issue isn't that billionaires aren't human, the problem very much is that billionaires are regular petty spiteful human beings with poor judgement, impulse control, odd beliefs and an the utter lack of checks and balances that can be disregarded when a human has a billion and more.
NotAllBillionaires, sure .. but it only takes a few to screw over millions of other humans on a whim.
Frankly, imho, billionaires shouldn't even exist. No one person can get that much wealth, that much power, that much influence, without losing their humanity, their decency. It's just not possible because the only way to accrue that much wealth is to do horrifically indecent things.
So, do I recognize what you're saying? Certainly. But I won't be shedding a tear of sympathy for them. I lose all sympathy for them when they step on the necks of everyday people to get where they are.
Succeeding at business does not alone make you a billionaire; that's a whole new level above "successful business owner". Most successful business owners are millionaires but not billionaires. As I said, no one becomes a billionaire without doing horrible things because said horrible things are exactly how you amass such a large amount of wealth amongst a single person.
Also, winning the lottery to the extent of becoming a billionaire is neither common (that's the understatement of the millennium) nor a business. It is a gamble, and a gamble millions of people lose every day because they refuse or fail to understand the sheer improbability of "getting the big one" and the sheer degree to which said gambles are stacked against the "player".
> As I said, no one becomes a billionaire without doing horrible things because said horrible things are exactly how you amass such a large amount of wealth amongst a single person.
Not exactly true.
Andrew Forrest became a billionaire via Fortescue Metals and leveraging development of vast iron ore fields for sale to China. Since then he's focused on renewable energy to reduce harmful emissions in resource mining. He has skated some questionable activities in a humane and considered way but he's far from scum of the earth.
Gina Rinehart became a billionaire by virtue of being born to a self made billionaire. Her father got there by mining Blue Asbestos and exporting lung disease across the planet, followed up by also exploiting iron ore fields (although decades prior to Forrest). Lang Hancock (the father of Rinehardt) was a person of questionable values, Gina is a terrible human being with scany regard for others.
The same Andrew Forrest whose company were found to have knowingly destroyed hundreds of local Australian aboriginal sacred sites in its mining operations? Also, he's a billionaire. He may not be "scum of the earth", and maybe he's tried to do better in his latter days, but he still got horrifically rich off of everyday workers' sweat, injuries, and hardships (mining is no joke).
Besides, this philanthropy is largely just token restitution, at best. No one needs to be that wealthy to live more than comfortable. If he really wanted to help the world, he would use enough of his wealth so as to no longer be a billionaire.
People vastly underestimate just how much a billion dollars is compared to a million dollars, or even 500 million dollars. He could literally give away 99% of his wealth and still "only" have 10 million dollars. And as of of 2023 he had 33 times that much.
No one needs to hog that much of the world's resources. It is neither just nor equitable.
Are you comfortable blaming individuals like Forrest for the destruction that global consumption of iron, copper, and renewables brings, or would you rather 'fess up to collective responsiblity?
The largest Copper resource in the US currently is on naive American sacred land, and the latest proposal for providing rare earth elements essntial for modern lifestyles would disrupt a river system that spans a land area similar in size to Texas.
Do you wish to blame Forrest for these things, or the end customers and their demands?
NB: I've things to attend to now, I'll be back in some hours if you've an interest in all this.
It is our collective society's fault, yes, but the billionaires are the ones who exploit it. They are just as bad, if not worse.
Also, apologies, but I edited my above comment, and wasn't able to submit it before you replied.
And no worries. Good luck on your things. Honestly, I'm kinda done with this conversation, as interesting as it has been. It feels like it's run its course.
It's a pity you bailed, no drama - it's an area of long term interest to me and from the look of your comment you've never worked in mining, you've assumed Forrest never has, nor worked the land, and took an ankle deep search for "bad things about Forrest".
The interesting thing about Forrest is he grew up on Aboriginal land side by side with aboriginal people who themselves have deeply divided views about their past and their future - Forrest has gone well out of his way to provide jobs and education for native people and to sit down at length and discuss deeply contentious issues.
In a domain rife with trolley problems he's been considerably better than most, still with unavoidable warts, and hasn't blown up and destroyed anything on the order of that which Rio Tinto and US Gas companies have.
If you lack any on the ground local context and knowledge there's no shartage of bad press about Forrest, he gets no end of it from the likes of Gina Rhinehart, Clive Palmer, and other resource billionaires who despise him for turning much of his wealth to a greater good (an area of debate, of course) and suggesting that others do the same.
I've known both her and Forrest pretty much my entire life, her land is just to north of where Forrest is operating, she is dealing with many issues - some of which are touched upon here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6Hmp9ndkI
( Mainly about Canada, but comes back to touch upon Jill's 50,000 year strong family art collection )
> It is our collective society's fault, yes, but the billionaires are the ones who exploit it.
I'd be interested in your suggestions for how to do better.
Bear in mind that if individual billionaires were not operating here then the demand for resources would still exist and would be met by corporations (eg: Rio Tinto) who would chew through the landscape just as you claim others do: https://antar.org.au/issues/cultural-heritage/the-destructio...
I mean Masa will make you a billionaire if you just have a shit business idea you’re enthusiastic enough about, no need to be a terrible person.
Compared to the amount of billionaires there are also relatively many lottery jackpots that will get you there if you just stick your winnings in an index fund.
Not to mention that there’s a decent amount of people who become billionaires by just working on relatively boring ”normal” business like real estate development, where some luck, good decisions and leveraging bank loans will get you there without having to be a slumlord or doing anything terrible.
H&H is next door, yet for years Zabars got its in-house bagels from Columbia Bagels on 110th and Bway (sadly now gone). Anyway next time skip H&H and just start and end your trip at Zabars ;)
That simply isn't true and the statistics on "good guys with guns" do not show that they are more likely to shoot a bystander. I dont; want everyone on the street packing, either, but at least use real info to make arguments.
To some degree, it comes from the same reason high speed rail doesn't work here in the US while it's a pleasure in Europe. The vast majority of places in this country are truly out in the sticks, and defending yourself from wildlife or humans with bad intent are real worries. In our cities, we have gun control laws similar to Europe.
Open and concealed carry, both unlicensed, extremely common in Phoenix which is the 5th largest city in the USA. 3d print yourself a frame, mail order the unregulated parts, stick it down your waistband, and you are legally good to go.
This doesn't make sense. Wall plugs (like circuit breakers) are designed for a particular max amperage draw. If I have a 10A 120V circuit and wall plug, I can't charge my car at 8A?
I have wall ovens that connect via a 50A circuit. Do I need to worry about fire hazards when I bake something for hours and hours?
Not an electrician, consult a real one for any actual electrical work or questions.
It's complicated. Heat builds up over time. So for example your standard 15 amp breaker on a 14 gauge wire in the US is rated for 15 amps of intermittent use, but if you draw that continuously without letting the heat dissipate it becomes a fire hazard. IIRC circuits are generally rated for ~80% of their max load for continuous use, so that 15 amp circuit is considered good for 12 continuous. Or in your 10 amp example 8 should be ok.
Your oven and circuit should be sized such that your long cooks aren't a concern, if you look at it's label you'll probably find it has a max draw of well below 50amps, but if you have actual doubts ask a professional.
A concern for high current outlets in the US, such as NEMA 14-50, is that they weren't necessarily designed for a large number of plug/unplug cycles. Typically you'd plug your stove in and leave it there for years to decades.
If you use the same 14-50 outlet for car charging, which is not uncommon, the contacts can lose their grip over time. End users may want to take their mobile EVSE with them and incur cycles on the outlet. Properly installed but worn 14-50s have been known to melt or even catch fire under these conditions.
End users should prefer to have their EVSE(s) hardwired or installed with a higher grade outlet like Hubbell or Bryant.
i'm always surprised how people here downvote correct information. This is 100% correct because heat in electrical wiring is a function of power (current) and time. The vast majority of electrical devices in a typical home use under 80% of their rated power. The few that do use their full power, like a resistive heater, often do not run continuously.
In contrast, it is completely normal to charge an EV at a socket's maximum power for over ten hours straight. This time component is why charging EVs from a regular AC outlet can be a fire risk.
FWIW, oven/range circuits are notoriously overspecified.
Code in the US is 220V/50A. Your wall oven will get the same, despite having a much lower max draw than the usual oven/cooktop combination.
50A (upgraded from 30A several years ago) is specified for having the oven plus all cooktop elements ON. Maximum instantaneous draw will be below 50A. There's also the standard 20% headroom allotment, and some additional safety margin to account for the heat generated by all of the above being ON (or high duty cycle) for an extended period.
That still didn't explain anything. Surely the car could limit itself to 80% of standard socket rated output for continuous draw, like they do in other countries. Are Norwegian outlets commonly installed so far below spec that that will cause them to catch fire? What was the impetus for this regulation?
I don’t know exactly for Norway as that was the best English article I could find. A standard danish outlet (they are crap) is 16A but is not rated for more than 6A if the load is continuous for more than 2 hours.
Then use a 6A charger? Assuming it's 2x the voltage of the US that's the same power as a 12A charger would be in the US, and I get plenty of charging at 16A (which is the maximum continuous load on a 20A circuit)
In Japan they are still widely used by businesses of all types. In the US, I see them routinely in doctor's offices for transmitting signed orders etc.
A lot of margin is people borrowing against holdings instead of selling to generate cash (and tax liability). These Securities-backed lines of credit appear as margin on these kinds of reports...
> Surprisingly they charge $190/yr per car for this.
Don't feel too bad. In Chicago, it's a $30 optional add-on to the annual sticker that everyone has to buy whether they park on the street or keep the car in a garage. The annual sticker cost is based on the weight of the vehicle; it can run from $100 to $500 per year.
