Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic • Hacker News Board

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#271

Post by bobthepanda » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #245

bobthepanda wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a local US government, you probably have trouble keeping the lights on, let alone justifying CapEx on more buses. King County in Seattle recently costed a transition to all-electric: the conclusion was that it would cost 41% more than sticking with the current hybrids, and would be equivalent to reducing service by 237,000 hours annually. https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/11/02/metros-fleet-all-e...

Have they included emissions and healthcare considerations in those cost estimates?

Which causes less emissions, the amount of solo drivers you’d switch with all the lost service hours or the marginal electrification of hybrid buses that have regenerative braking, stop and go and don’t go above 30mph?

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#272

Post by mlyle » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

alliao wrote: post #246

mlyle wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hugely variable. I only burn about 20 gallons of gas per year. About one third of that is to avoid fuel spoiling, one third of that is for when I need longer trips, and one third when I screw up charging. Even so, I get about 40MPG, so much better than an average vehicle. It does sting to maintain an engine for 800 miles a year.

never thought about that, do the oil come out looking new?

I don't change my own oil anymore, but I imagine that it's just barely picked up some color-- Honda specifies synthetic and it's only a few hundred miles per change.

Pretty soon I'm going to be out of warranty and I'm going to stretch the oil change interval a bit beyond what they suggest-- 16 mos instead of a year. It just feels wasteful.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#273

Post by mattlondon » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #266

zenexer wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don’t really understand how you can end up in that situation. It seems contrived. With proper driving technique, it shouldn’t be possible. Granted, mistakes happen, but I’ve never been in a situation where the difference was noticeable or relevant.

The argument here is about comfort, not impossibility. Someone who is comfortable driving a 5s 0-60 car just won't buy a 10s 0-60 replacement. Not because it is impossible to get to places in the latter but because it's uncomfortable. If you want these people to replace their 5s cars with hybrids you need to offer 5s hybrids.

> If you want these people to replace their 5s cars with hybrids you need to offer 5s hybrids.

These are readily available.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#274

Post by tslmy » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

bargle0 wrote: post #2

I don’t buy the queue argument. It would devolve in to a bunch of churn inevitably resulting in thrown hands and black eyes.

The article should have clarified one more assumption: In a Landsburg's queue, it is compulsory for everyone arriving at the scene to *join the queue immediately*. Otherwise, people would just swarm around the head of the queue, fighting to join the queue as soon as the current customer gets served. In the following discussions, I assume such swarms are successfully prohibited.

# For those who end up going home

For those who end up going home, a traditional queue is still more efficient.

In a Landsburg's queue, if you decided to go home, it must be that there has been too many people joined the queue ("the queue got full"). *Their arrival takes time*. You would have waited for quite some time when you decided to bail out.

A traditional queue, on the other hand, allows those who end up going home to choose to do so immediately upon arriving at the scene. You arrive at the scene, look at the queue, judge that it would take unacceptably long period of time before you can get served ("it's currently full"), and decide to go home. You never join the queue. You wait for zero seconds.

# Arranging early arrivals is important

*Filtering for fans.* In the book _The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life_, Landsburg himself stated that some businesses would prefer to serve fanatic patrons over mediocre customers. In an ordinary queue, customers can prove their loyalty by *arranging to arrive early*. On the other hand, by attaching the probability of getting served directly to the probabilistic nature of when one arrives, a Landsburg's queue does not allow/support proving patronage with early arrivals.

*An ordinary queue is an auction.* One of the main arguments that Landsburg proposed is that an ordinary, first-in-first-out queue is inefficient because it is not a market. I disagree to some extent. Let's re-examine the act of arranging early arrivals. By arriving early, you sacrifice the liberty of arranging the day's tasks liberally, often risking postponing a couple of other chores to the next day and/or losing opportunities for spending the morning somewhere else. This *cost of flexibility and opportunity* is a bid[^1] for guarantee/priority of service. Yes, it's still not a market where you trade spots in the queue, but its auction-like nature makes it a much closer implementation than Landsburg's queue.

[^1]: Well, it's technically a payment, since you don't get your money back should you lose the auction (i.e., decide to bail out from the queue). However, since it's not a game of chance, I can't call it a gamble either.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#275

Post by tslmy » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

nojs wrote: post #179

> Each new person who joins a queue goes to the front, standing immediately behind the person being served. This is, of course, an outrage against reason, intuition and natural justice. It is also highly efficient. If you’re next in line to be served, but someone shows up and shoehorns herself into position in front of you, you walk away. The line is only going to get longer, and you’re always going to be at the back…

The article should have clarified one more assumption: In a Landsburg's queue, it is compulsory for everyone arriving at the scene to *join the queue immediately*. Otherwise, people would just swarm around the head of the queue, fighting to join the queue as soon as the current customer gets served. In the following discussions, I assume such swarms are successfully prohibited.

# For those who end up going home

For those who end up going home, a traditional queue is still more efficient.

In a Landsburg's queue, if you decided to go home, it must be that there has been too many people joined the queue ("the queue got full"). *Their arrival takes time*. You would have waited for quite some time when you decided to bail out.

A traditional queue, on the other hand, allows those who end up going home to choose to do so immediately upon arriving at the scene. You arrive at the scene, look at the queue, judge that it would take unacceptably long period of time before you can get served ("it's currently full"), and decide to go home. You never join the queue. You wait for zero seconds.

# Arranging early arrivals is important *Filtering for fans.* In the book _The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life_, Landsburg himself stated that some businesses would prefer to serve fanatic patrons over mediocre customers. In an ordinary queue, customers can prove their loyalty by *arranging to arrive early*. On the other hand, by attaching the probability of getting served directly to the probabilistic nature of when one arrives, a Landsburg's queue does not allow/support proving patronage with early arrivals.

*An ordinary queue is an auction.* One of the main arguments that Landsburg proposed is that an ordinary, first-in-first-out queue is inefficient because it is not a market. I disagree to some extent. Let's re-examine the act of arranging early arrivals. By arriving early, you sacrifice the liberty of arranging the day's tasks liberally, often risking postponing a couple of other chores to the next day and/or losing opportunities for spending the morning somewhere else. This *cost of flexibility and opportunity* is a bid[^1] for guarantee/priority of service. Yes, it's still not a market where you trade spots in the queue, but its auction-like nature makes it a much closer implementation than Landsburg's queue.

[^1]: Well, it's technically a payment, since you don't get your money back should you lose the auction (i.e., decide to bail out from the queue). However, since it's not a game of chance, I can't call it a gamble either.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#276

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #268

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

">When some starve and others hoard food, is property more important than hunger? Yes, because destroying private property rights will lead to further famines. It's something called second-order effects" There is this really interesting second order effect I heard about, very few people know about it - apparently masses of starving people might not just quietly watch their family succumb to famine, sometimes they sta…

>sometimes they start cutting off heads of whoever is in charge I wish they'd actually done so to Stalin, seeing as he was the one in charge and his policies were the cause of the famine. Instead, it seems like the majority swallowed his propaganda blaming the kulaks hook, line, and sinker.

Indeed, seems like French are better at it and more decisive.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#277

Post by matthewdgreen » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #192

matthewdgreen wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

31 miles with a small/light/inexpensive battery and reasonably rapid charging would not be a joke, particularly if you also got some gas-only efficiency benefits. But the X5 has a relatively huge and heavy 24kWh battery pack - nearly 1/3 the size of a Model Y, a car that gets 10x the electric range. The result is a substantial cost increase over the gas-only X5, plus gas mileage that is actually worse. Moreover, the…

In the US, at least, 45e MSRP is 3700 more than 40i xdrive and 45e comes standard with air suspension, which is a 2K+ option on 40i (can't look it up now because it's not even available at this time). I would not call a ~2000 a substantial cost increase on a 60K+ vehicle. But there is more - you get 7500 tax credit from the feds and in some states you get the state credit too so it's actually cheaper than even rear-d…

In other words, with some luxury features, small sales numbers (easy to take a small margin when you’re selling next to none) and a massive $7500 Federal subsidy it compares with the ICE on affordability. But I would prefer to save those valuable $7500 tax credits for vehicle designs that can actually be built and sold at scale. That’s the problem here: PHEVs are supposed to be a bridge to full EVs, but this thing is an obsolete dinosaur that will barely move the needle on electrification. It’s also fairly obvious that within the extended warranty lifespan of this vehicle, BMW will ditch this design and completely replace it with a platform that is a good EV first, rather than an ICE with some expensive bolt on electrification.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#278

Post by bobthepanda » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #270

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they included emissions and healthcare considerations in those cost estimates?

Well, one would imagine that the externalities are mitigated by the fact that they are spread. AGW isn’t even bad for that region: abundant water, solid local government, improved arable land.

Eh, if AGW leads to more events like the triple digit heat waves in a region that has less than half of all buildings AC-capable due to the mild climate, it's pretty awful.

A lot of local water also comes from snowpack built over winter, which has been decreasing.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#279

Post by pandaman » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #277

pandaman wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, at least, 45e MSRP is 3700 more than 40i xdrive and 45e comes standard with air suspension, which is a 2K+ option on 40i (can't look it up now because it's not even available at this time). I would not call a ~2000 a substantial cost increase on a 60K+ vehicle. But there is more - you get 7500 tax credit from the feds and in some states you get the state credit too so it's actually cheaper than even rear-d…

In other words, with some luxury features, small sales numbers (easy to take a small margin when you’re selling next to none) and a massive $7500 Federal subsidy it compares with the ICE on affordability. But I would prefer to save those valuable $7500 tax credits for vehicle designs that can actually be built and sold at scale. That’s the problem here: PHEVs are supposed to be a bridge to full EVs, but this thing is…

I frankly don't care about the needle of electrification. I responded to your claim that it is substantially more expensive, which had been false in my experience. If BMW will drop this design or the price incentive will change I am not going to be buying a BEV for sure, it's going to be an ICE or hybrid from another brand. Luckily the trend seems to be opposite, the 45e replaced the horrendous 40e and had been a great success so I doubt BMW will be killing this line any time soon.

Re: Buy a coal mine, drive a gas guzzler, and other uses of reverse logic

#280

Post by robertlagrant » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

lucian1900 wrote: post #100

robertlagrant wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap trains and light rail require very high levels of automation. As long as you argue in favour of that as well it makes sense.

Of course. Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further, but it would be entirely possible under a socialist economy that produces for use instead of for profit.

> Such automation wouldn’t be sustainable under capitalism because the rate of profit would drop even further

Not really. Successful automation increases profits. E.g. McDonald's touchscreen menus came about because minimum wage increased, and the value of labour became less than its cost, so investment in automation was required.

What else do you think incentivises expensive, failure-prone automation attempts? It increases value and thus competitiveness in the marketplace of the automating company.