Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
I know their history. And yes they started as the luxe offering you describe.
But THEN they realised that in an era of ubiquitous smartphones with detailed real-time maps, showing location, you could have a universal instant ride-hailing service, with automatic payment and no cash or cards involved. It is brilliant.
And it IS the future, as owning cars becomes an unnecessary extravagance. Owning your own car in the future will be like owning a horse now, whereas once owning horses was extremely common.
What's more, you could argue that their model becomes more valid post-Covid: there's no exchange of money or cards (less infection), fewer people will want to use trains (increase in passengers) and if they get their Holy Grail of driverless vehicles then that's probably the ideal way to move around, if you want to stay bug-free
HOWEVER I agree they are right on a knife edge because they haven't crushed the competition yet, they have regulatory issues (just like Airbnb) and they are still spending billions with no profit.
Either minicab drivers (or autonomous car owners) own the cars or Uber does. Currently the model is that Uber doesn't own jack shit - they have out sourced their capital costs to the drivers.
If you are imagining a future where Uber own the vehicles then Uber has to spend a few more billion buying all the vehicles and the storage and maintenance facilities.
Uber currently have absolutely no skills at any of that. It would be a whole new avenue for them to fail at.
And once again this only works if they exclusively get autonomous vehicle tech. The thing about operating a minicab firm is that it is really easy and cheap to get started. Uber can never "crush the competition" because they can always be challenged by small local competitors who don't have the massive overheads of pretending to be a technology company rather than a minicab firm.
Uber only is where it is in terms of market dominance because it is selling $11 dollar taxi rides for $8.50. The evidence is that whenever it raises its fares to it's break even (or god forbin profitability) in a market they lose ridership to local competitors. The taxi user pool is massively price sensitive. No fancy app beats that.
And yet, it is still a brilliant idea, and extremely popular.
Yes, I am perfectly happy with someone subsidising my mini-cab usage. That's not a brilliant idea.
Giving money away with no end goal is not a great business plan.
Except he didn’t did he? He offered a tiny amount of money.
Hundreds of billions so far this year.
OK but what has that got to do with yesterday?
Yesterday's expenditure was a part of the package not the whole package.
That is the problem with spendaholic lefties like you. Money gets committed and you bank it then demand more and nothing is ever enough. So instead of saying "the government is spending hundreds of billions" you say "the spending is £5 billion".
When you look at overall what the government has done this year, including the furlough scheme etc, absolutely it is comparable to FDR.
I wasn’t the one who declared that “Boris went FDR New Deal yesterday”.
In terms of expanding a mass infrastructure building programme he did
Done some rough and ready fag packet maths, reckon I'm at about 24 pence per mile all amortised for my current car. I can't see how a cab company can ever compete with that.
Though I doubt they'll need to. I suppose with the cost of parking in cities it'll be more for your own car to run there...
We don't all live in cities. Parking is free at most places.
Not in Horsham or in the village car parks in its environs it isn't. We are ripped off at every turn. If you go to Sainsburys you get half an hr free but if you go over you have to spend £10 in the shop or pay, there's no avoiding it. The only place it is free is in the out of town car parks, Halfords B and Q and Tesco.. oh.. and now Lidl.
LadyG, just wanted to thank you for reviving my Louisiana memories. Hope you made it to Cafe du Monde in French Quarter, it not, something for next visit,
Wonder if you picked up on local New Orleans ("Nawlins") accent. Once spoken by many local Whites ("yats") but probably more prevalent today in its Black varient.
Classic is "My brotha Oil works on an earl well." Very similar to old-school Brooklyn accent. One thing that always tickled me was way many NO Black folks pronounce "orange" - "What kind of soft drink do you want? Coke, root beer or erngh drink." Whites in city tend to more standard Deep South "ahhhng".
I did notice the different twang to the accent. I quite like it.
Thanks for the tip on Cafe du Monde. One for my next visit.
One thing that really struck me about Nawlins was the decadence of the rich white locals. I have a British friend who lives in the city and he took me to their bars and hangouts. My God, they love to party. And they do love their liquor.
And now I must do the opposite, and work. Good day to all
Done some rough and ready fag packet maths, reckon I'm at about 24 pence per mile all amortised for my current car. I can't see how a cab company can ever compete with that.
Though I doubt they'll need to. I suppose with the cost of parking in cities it'll be more for your own car to run there...
The absence of hassles around parking is a part of Uber's appeal.
Basically, in London, Uber is like having a personal chauffeur in his own car always waiting two minutes around the corner, ready to pick you up and drop you off wherever you like (or do the same for friends) no cash or cards needed, no annoying rants about politics
The increase in utility over traditional minicabs and black cabs is vast
Therefore, some form of this model is the future. But it might not be Uber doing it
You only get the volume of drivers by subsiding the cost of the mini-cab ride at an unsustainable level.
Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
TimT, liked you talking about how you met fellow who'd worked on Lake Pontchartrain Causeway (I'm guessing the 2nd one) which is a great engineering marvel. Though a bit freaky to drive until you get used to it,
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I imagine it is a sign of success from track and trace, that we are tracking, tracing and isolating people before they end up in hospital.
I know their history. And yes they started as the luxe offering you describe.
But THEN they realised that in an era of ubiquitous smartphones with detailed real-time maps, showing location, you could have a universal instant ride-hailing service, with automatic payment and no cash or cards involved. It is brilliant.
And it IS the future, as owning cars becomes an unnecessary extravagance. Owning your own car in the future will be like owning a horse now, whereas once owning horses was extremely common.
What's more, you could argue that their model becomes more valid post-Covid: there's no exchange of money or cards (less infection), fewer people will want to use trains (increase in passengers) and if they get their Holy Grail of driverless vehicles then that's probably the ideal way to move around, if you want to stay bug-free
HOWEVER I agree they are right on a knife edge because they haven't crushed the competition yet, they have regulatory issues (just like Airbnb) and they are still spending billions with no profit.
Either minicab drivers (or autonomous car owners) own the cars or Uber does. Currently the model is that Uber doesn't own jack shit - they have out sourced their capital costs to the drivers.
If you are imagining a future where Uber own the vehicles then Uber has to spend a few more billion buying all the vehicles and the storage and maintenance facilities.
Uber currently have absolutely no skills at any of that. It would be a whole new avenue for them to fail at.
And once again this only works if they exclusively get autonomous vehicle tech. The thing about operating a minicab firm is that it is really easy and cheap to get started. Uber can never "crush the competition" because they can always be challenged by small local competitors who don't have the massive overheads of pretending to be a technology company rather than a minicab firm.
Uber only is where it is in terms of market dominance because it is selling $11 dollar taxi rides for $8.50. The evidence is that whenever it raises its fares to it's break even (or god forbin profitability) in a market they lose ridership to local competitors. The taxi user pool is massively price sensitive. No fancy app beats that.
And yet, it is still a brilliant idea, and extremely popular. Uber has 3.5m riders in London alone. Everyone I know used it - pre-Covid- all the time. It is just incredibly convenient
But yes they have big problems with rivals, and regulation, and their bid to dominate driverless looks doomed: they have extremely powerful competitors
The basic idea of extracting greater economic output from underutilized assets (cars) and underemployed people does make sense to me. But I have no idea what it would take to make it profitable for all parties.
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
As someone in that article says, it is mainly a way for white people to refer to everyone else without feeling awkward.
That said, why shouldn't white people have a term they can use without getting cancelled three minutes later?
Cancelled?
Yesterday you said you didn't understand the word "woke" and only found it here.
Today you say you don't understand the word "cancelled"?
May I politely suggest you are not totally on trend when it comes to contemporary politics.
Thank goodness for that
lol.
I rather envy you. I yearn for the innocent days when I didn't understand the term "Woke".
Well, yes. But I would maintain you understand "woke" in the sense that my dad understands "grime".
For example, Stormzy at Glasto last year, he (my dad) watched it intently, was very interested, and I got an email from him with his thoughts. Many observations but with a common theme - Stormzy might be all the rage but if this sort of thing caught on it was goodbye proper music. And as for that union jack "stab vest", that was celebrating violence and therefore disgusting.
Who is this "Stormzy"?
- he's what you and the "chaps" call most new fangled things.
Very narrow victory, but none-the-less impressive in Deep Red country. Rural counties rejected OK State Question 608, but it passed due to strong support in Oklahoma City, Tulsa and college towns.
If Biden's got a sniff in Oklahoma then Trump's in deep deep trouble.
@Alistair I'm trying to work out at what point the "average" person's amortised/total cost per mile in their own car becomes equal to that of a typical Uber journey.
For myself my inputs are
90,000 miles @ 45 mpg = 9100 litres @ £1.30 say £12,000 rounded up Cost of car £7000 Sundry expenses - tyres, clutch change £3000 maybe (Bit high perhaps) Insurance, tax £250 for 8 years = £2000 perhaps (Touch low ?
So it's 27 pence per mile as I forgot the car came with some numbers on it for the 24 pence...
What is the number any autonomous solution has to beat for the typical man or woman ? What is Uber's cost now.
Thinking about BBC a bit more while I was just out, I think @TOPPING 's original programming jibe at Netflix shows the real, real danger that the BBC is in for the long-term.
In the past the BBC has relied upon its incumbency and its history of original programming but its losing both of those, fast. My generation and younger generations are simply not that bothered by the BBC anymore and that isn't a "young are liberal, old are conservative" idea - it is simply we've grown up with choice and that is not going away.
People are growing up with more channels and used to streaming and YouTube and multi-channel TVs. The idea of simply having the BBC on and seeing whatever is on next is rapidly fading into history.
And then when it comes to content the BBC used to be famed for its content. Emphasis is used to be. The era of Monty Python etc ended a long time ago, now increasingly the most talked about TV is Netflix and that is only going to continue.
The problem is that the era of the BBC is dying. It can't compete on original programming, it can't compete on cost. People increasing simply don't care for it and fondness for it is dying away.
Change has to come - and the problem is like a 'bricks and mortar' store failing to see the threat Amazon provides to their existence, the longer the BBCs fans live in denial about this fact the weaker and weaker the BBC will be when it is finally dealt with.
Years ago when digital was rolling out had the BBC been made a subscription service it would have had near universal uptake. Now that's going to be technologically hard to achieve and it won't be. The longer this is ignored, the worse it is for the long-term future of the BBC.
Yes, that's an astute summary of the problem. In the end, this isn't a political issue, it is practical. Blockbusters didn't go out of business because it is leftwing, or anarcho-syndicalist, or a part of a patriarchal Establishment. It went out of biz because people stopped using it.
The BBC will face an existential moment, quite soon
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I imagine it is a sign of success from track and trace, that we are tracking, tracing and isolating people before they end up in hospital.
So there is not actually an increase in infection at all, there is just an increase in the number of infected being traced? We started off assuming that there were roughly 10:1, that is 10 people with the virus for everyone found to have it by the (limited) testing available. Are we now maybe closer to 2-3:1?
If that is the case I am not sure what we are worrying about.
Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
TimT, liked you talking about how you met fellow who'd worked on Lake Pontchartrain Causeway (I'm guessing the 2nd one) which is a great engineering marvel. Though a bit freaky to drive until you get used to it,
Like the Chesapeake Bridge Tunnel. 17 miles across and under the mouth of the Chesapeake. Beautiful. I used to love driving it, but many others do not. It was at the time the second most expensive road toll in the world - $20 in the late 90s.
Mr Thibodeau would have worked on the Pontchartrain project in the 50s, after coming back from WWII. He was a structural engineer.
For the Chesapeake project, they had to build special ships to drive the concrete pillars into the bay floor for the causeway parts. One of them capsized and sank in the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962.
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we know the answer to that the answer of who they should choose to lead them may become a little clearer.
For me, Liberal Democrats reflect at their best a healthy scepticism of the world. So they like a helping State but are suspicious of an overpowering state. They like personal freedom but they also respect the rights of others not to be insulted or hurt (arguably too much so). They don't like austerity but they are not keen on debt either being willing to have higher taxes than the Tories to bridge the difference. They like localism and have a general preference for bottom up than top down solutions. They don't like dogma or fixed positions being more pragmatic in their approach (the EU arguably being an exception to a few of these positions). They like internationalism and international co-operation (which in fairness their EU position was consistent with).
Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
Labour under "Sir Kneel" as you cringingly call him is an absolute opportunity for them. Traditional moderate Tories like myself will feel very happy lending our vote to the LDs when the worst that can happen is a Labour government under the premiership of someone that looks and sounds professional. I don't particularly want a Labour government, but if I have to pay that price to rid the Conservative Party of the cancerous affliction of Johnson and Cummings that is a price worth paying.
That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.
Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.
But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.
I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
One of the more bizarre elements of this contest is that Trump hasn't led in a Floridian poll since March. That's barely discussed on here, but if he loses FL there is almost no viable route back to the White House.
There has long been the view that you create the scale, get the customer base, and only THEN think about making it profitable.
That isn't totally wrong - there are a lot of now very profitable businesses where the route from scale to profitability was never very clear, but where they found a way.
However, the regulatory challenges are very large for Uber compared with, say, Just Eat, which is ultimately getting a cut from existing (regulated) restaurants and takeaways for pushing business their way. The Uber drivers aren't part of an existing regulated business which inevitably gives Uber employment law and safety obligations... whereas if I order from the local Indian restaurant via Just Eat, it's not Just Eat I do (or should) blame if I get food poisoning, and nor is it Just Eat hiring and firing the chef.
With Uber (and other start-up loss making businesses of that type), what you really want to be able to do is look at individual markets and see whether they are profitable there. And you also want to understand whether the core economics work.
So, how much does it cost to bring in each individual Uber customer? And what can you expect in profits from them? Are losses the result of poor unit economics? Or are they the result of an aggressive roll out where profits from early markets are swamped by losses caused by marketing spend in new markets?
Uber is - at heart - just a taxi cab agency. You remember the ones - you'd call and say "I want to go from 5 Station Road to Woolworths on the High Stret" and they'd send a car.
Because Uber's platform gave so much more to drivers (percentage-wise), and because it offered a superior experience to customers, it took a lot of share. Who uses Addison Lee any more?
I don't remember exactly what share of the fare Uber gets, but it's in the 15% range. Assuming CACs are reasonable (sub $100), and assuming that Uber can expect to earn more than $300 in fees (meaning $2-3,000 in rides) over a customer's lifecycle, then Uber is ultimately profitable. But if the number is $200 for CACs and they only get $1,500 in rides, then Uber is in terrible trouble.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Uber is nearer the first than the second. I suspect that in mature markets, if they dial back marketing, they move fairly rapidly to cash flow positive. The issue is that they probably overspend on marketing because they need to show they're a growth company.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
The BBC could lose news, sport, weather and politics and no one would care that much.
That's literally all that differentiates it TV-wise from Netflix though.
Ultimately if the BBC is great value for money people will be prepared to pay for it from free choice. The only reason people are so horrified about the idea of it being a free choice is they're aware that many people won't find it good value for money.
Um, Netflix buys in made programmes and has only recently begun to produce "Netflix Original Series" and films...
Many of the things labelled "Netflix Original" are no such thing.
How on earth is Uber losing money. They're literally a % cut global minicab service.
It's all going into R&D for driverless cars, isn't it?
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.
How about non whites?
This exact thought occurred to me as I was writing that. It could be that having "non" in it gives a negative feel. But I don't know.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
What scandal? They were given access to the postcode-level data last week.
If you think this is perfectly acceptable, including the dishonest response from DHSC, there's no point replying. I engage with people who have higher standards.
Amazon almost always made a profit on an operational level, it just reinvested it all to allow it to continually expand.
Uber and most of the other gig companies are subsidising almost every sale in the hope that when they reach critical mass they can increase their prices. I've never seen how that plan works.
Amazon have NEVER made a profit in retailing outside the US. The reason Amazon Europe lose a billion a year has got nothing to do with investment or tax dodging.
Like most multinational retailers, once they leave their home country, they screw up. They're no better than Walmart: just smaller. They're bigger than Tesco or M&S: but all of them have one thing in common.
Off their home territory they're crap. Amazon differs from Walmart, Tesco and M&S only in having shareholders who drink the kool-aid the bald coot and the broker community pour out.
Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
No. Trump has drifted to 3 but he still looks a clear lay to me. He won't quit the race, though, will he? I hope not and I think not - but what do you think?
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
I think that that is a slightly different incompetence in that local NHS units could not get access to testing that they were not doing themselves. It seems belatedly fixed after an appalling delay.
The question is really do we have hotspots of the virus or a better in some areas than others trace and test system? I'm honestly not sure but if I was the government I would want to be eliminating the latter option before I introduce localised lockdowns.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
What scandal? They were given access to the postcode-level data last week.
If you think this is perfectly acceptable, including the dishonest response from DHSC, there's no point replying. I engage with people who have higher standards.
What response? I was talking about the situation in Leicester.
@Alistair I'm trying to work out at what point the "average" person's amortised/total cost per mile in their own car becomes equal to that of a typical Uber journey.
For myself my inputs are
90,000 miles @ 45 mpg = 9100 litres @ £1.30 say £12,000 rounded up Cost of car £7000 Sundry expenses - tyres, clutch change £3000 maybe (Bit high perhaps) Insurance, tax £250 for 8 years = £2000 perhaps (Touch low ?
So it's 27 pence per mile as I forgot the car came with some numbers on it for the 24 pence...
What is the number any autonomous solution has to beat for the typical man or woman ? What is Uber's cost now.
My numbers 60,0000 miles @ 25mpg @ $2.50pg = $6,000 Cost of car $6500 (bought used) Cost of insurance and tags 5*($400+$100) = $2,500 Maintenance 5*$1000 = $5,000
What are the Liberal Democrats for? Once we Personally, I find a lot of these positions instinctively attractive. I think that we need a rational party focused on what works and pragmatism. They missed a chance when Corbyn was in charge of Labour by focusing their fire on the Tories. Labour under Sir Kneel are going to be more of a challenge for them.
I don't know enough about Moran's politics to make a definitive view but it seems to me that Davey is pretty much the epitome of this kind of politics.
That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of. Starmer is much less of a "must be stopped" candidate than Corbyn was.
Given that many of the contributors here were saying last autumn that "Corbyn must be stopped" I would have thought this was 'bleedin' obvious.
But I take @Nigel_Foremain's point that wibbly, dribbly Tories like him may be more inclined to vote Lib Dem next time because the alternative government is less appalling than it was in 2019. It is a good answer to my point that the complete unelectability of Labour in 2019 was an opportunity missed for the Lib Dems.
I think the LDs themselves saw it how you did. Corbyn meant a golden opportunity to score big in a GE at Labour's expense, perhaps even replace them as the main non-Tory party in England. This is why they would not put Corbyn in as a caretaker PM to deliver Ref2, why they went with their Revoke policy (for clear blue water from Labour and unequivocal Remain badging), and why they ultimately went for an election they knew was likely to lead to a majority Tory government. They were shooting for the stars (beat Labour) and they prioritized this above the cause they professed to care about above all others, stopping Brexit. I do not complain about this - all parties prioritize their own interest over the national interest (or argue they are by definition the same) - but this is definitely what I think happened with the LDs. Backfired badly of course. For them. Indeed imo for almost everybody.
To be fair to the Lib Dems, it was not a bad strategy. It paid handsomely in the European and local elections. They were unlucky to fall just short in a string of Conservative-held seats. They were obviously writing off their traditional strongholds, in the West Country, in the hope of winning prizes in the affluent Home Counties, and M3 and M4 corridors. The problem is there are no prizes for finishing a close second.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
Championship club Wigan have gone into administration and are likely to be deducted 12 points. The first of many? My team's chairman recently predicted 40 to 50 in the pyramid.
In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?
The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.
I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?
Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
No. Trump has drifted to 3 but he still looks a clear lay to me. He won't quit the race, though, will he? I hope not and I think not - but what do you think?
I think that there is an outside chance he will. If things get as bad with COVID as Fauci is fearing, if Project Lincoln starts shrinking Trump's base by stripping off appalled thinking conservatives, if the economy shows no signs of recovery and Congress fails to keep supplementing unemployment benefits, if (etc...) - the numbers could start to get truly disastrous for Trump.
He then has a choice of how he wants to be a Loser - on his own terms which he can spin as he wishes by walking away, or on terms set by the electorate where the comparison will be Mondale. The thought of walking away will almost certainly cross his mind at some point. Not sure whether he would do it though - the ego thing will pull in both directions.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?
The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.
I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.
This clearly isn't a geographical issue.
I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.
Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
Oofta
"Excess Driver incentives refer to cumulative payments, including incentives but excluding Driver referrals, to a Driver that exceed the cumulative revenue that we recognize from a Driver with no future guarantee of additional revenue."
Championship club Wigan have gone into administration and are likely to be deducted 12 points. The first of many? My team's chairman recently predicted 40 to 50 in the pyramid.
There's an argument for the whole of the Championship going into administration together obviating the 12 point penalty. I cannot believe any of them are viable without gate money on the share of TV that they get.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?
Championship club Wigan have gone into administration and are likely to be deducted 12 points. The first of many? My team's chairman recently predicted 40 to 50 in the pyramid.
There's an argument for the whole of the Championship going into administration together obviating the 12 point penalty. I cannot believe any of them are viable without gate money on the share of TV that they get.
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.
When some people often put in the BAME category are finding the category meaningful and helpful and some often put in the BAME category are finding it meaningless and demeaning, some of them having strong feelings about it both ways, it would seem understandable for non BAME's to have a period of silence on the subject. Except of course that for some 'silence is complicity'.
For myself I totally support the BAME group who find the category useless but would not dare to say so.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?
No, in that they can't pick people up at random. They have to be ordered. But I think Edinburgh has insisted that they have to meet minicab standards for safety, hygiene etc.
In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May. Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes. I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
The data here might be useful as it gives both cases per 100k and weekly cases per 100k - thus allowing you to see the more relevant current infection rates. Albeit for the week before last.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
But you do pay for live TV (and on-demand etc) one way or the other. Do you want all of that funding collected and administered by unaccountable media and communications corporations or do you want a small part of it to come from the public and spent in a manner that is (however imperfectly) accountable to the public?
We can discuss the minutiae of how to make the BBC more accountable and whether non-payment of the license fee should be a criminal offence or just treated like any other failure to pay taxes and levies ... but the core principle is whether as a country we want public service broadcasting as a component of our media.
I am undecided as to whether the BBC is a good thing. In my opinion you have to split it up into its component parts. You can't just say "what about Netflix.."
So you could have the following subscription services:
1. News (regional subsets thereof) 2. Sport (regional subsets thereof) 3. Weather (regional subsets thereof) 4. Comedy 5. Drama 6. Documentaries 7. Natural History 8. Children's programmes 9. Radio (subsets thereof) 10. Politics 11. Films 12. etc
If you think that a bog standard Netflix sub is £5.99/month and the BBC license fee is £14.50/month then even if you priced the above individually at something low (£3.99/month?) enough people would take enough of them to allow the BBC to make no changes.
Of course it's as likely that for most people it thereby becomes more expensive and the BBC's revenue increases, while some will choose to get their news and weather from the internet or Netflix.
The BBC could lose news, sport, weather and politics and no one would care that much.
That's literally all that differentiates it TV-wise from Netflix though.
Ultimately if the BBC is great value for money people will be prepared to pay for it from free choice. The only reason people are so horrified about the idea of it being a free choice is they're aware that many people won't find it good value for money.
Um, Netflix buys in made programmes and has only recently begun to produce "Netflix Original Series" and films. The BBC makes programmes. As well as everything else.
This is another of those Brexit issues. On the face of it (getting rid of the BBC or the license fee) seems like a good idea. When you actually delve into it, it's an illogical one. And would likely end up costing most people more.
Good for the BBC to be producing something. If it produces stuff that people wish to pay for then they should be free to do so. Free choice, I'm a big advocate of that.
Netflix produce far better original series and films than the BBC does in my humble opinion.
Do you know how much Netflix spends on original programming? How much the BBC does?
And as for spending. Look at Netflix's cashflow.
It is still operating on the model of selling people dollar bills for 80 cents.
They used to say the same about amazon. "Look, it's never made a profit!!
"Amazon reports $87.4 billion in Q4 2019 revenue: AWS up 34%, subscriptions up 32%, and ‘other’ up 41%"
Eighty seven BILLION in revenue
This is how you win in the internet. You "blitzscale". You spend and spend and spend - and don't make a profit for years - until you become so big you completely dominate the market, and crush all competition. THEN you sit back and start reaping the billions.
Uber is trying to do exactly this.
Uber have no route to profitability. Amazon always had a route to profitability.
Uber is a hard one to call. It's a brilliant idea, but it may be overtaken by events - the plague - and by tech change.
The future is surely small electric driverless vehicles, or air craft, that you can summon with an app *like* Uber. But it might not be THE Uber doing it, though they are having a go:
Uber is an awful idea. Venture capitalist subsidised mini-cabs is an awful pitch.
And that was their pitch. I've seen their original pitch deck. Their idea was luxury limousines summoned as a mini-cab rather than hired for a while evening.
There was absolutely nothing there about autonomous vehicles or clever AI or any of that nonsense. They literally pitched themselves as an up market minicab firm.
They have lost vast sums of money on their minicab operation whilst researching autonomous vehicles. It would have been better for them if they didn't run a massive loss making minicab firm and were just a research outfit.
And even if they get to autonomous vehicles they still don't have a path to profitability
I know their history. And yes they started as the luxe offering you describe.
But THEN they realised that in an era of ubiquitous smartphones with detailed real-time maps, showing location, you could have a universal instant ride-hailing service, with automatic payment and no cash or cards involved. It is brilliant.
And it IS the future, as owning cars becomes an unnecessary extravagance. Owning your own car in the future will be like owning a horse now, whereas once owning horses was extremely common.
What's more, you could argue that their model becomes more valid post-Covid: there's no exchange of money or cards (less infection), fewer people will want to use trains (increase in passengers) and if they get their Holy Grail of driverless vehicles then that's probably the ideal way to move around, if you want to stay bug-free
HOWEVER I agree they are right on a knife edge because they haven't crushed the competition yet, they have regulatory issues (just like Airbnb) and they are still spending billions with no profit.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?
No, in that they can't pick people up at random. They have to be ordered. But I think Edinburgh has insisted that they have to meet minicab standards for safety, hygiene etc.
That's what I mean, all minicabs have to be pre-booked, Uber or not. Only Black cabs can do ad-hoc on street pickup.
In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?
The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.
I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.
This clearly isn't a geographical issue.
I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.
Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?
Not seen an outbreak in Barnsley, but has been high for a few weeks with the outward spread from Sheffield.
Calderdale is pretty Asian, nothing doing - yet. Swale and Ashford which I'm sure would be up there if districts were included - they've had problems all month. Southend on Sea?? Northants as a county featured at the top of the chart a couple of weeks ago bridging Bedford and Leicester.
No, this bears some resemblance to the Weston outbreak.
I'm not saying large multigenerational households are not a factor at all, but geographical creep of outbreaks happened in Italy and permeated the mountain provinces of Lombardy quite late in the outbreak.
In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May. Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes. I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
Considering it would give him an even bigger majority in parliament, the SNP threatening to do a Sinn Fein would make Boris less likely to agree to indyref2, to be honest.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?
I haven't seen that "conservative" defined yet - but your other numbers don't immediately strike me as badly off the mark.
In other news, the penny is dropping that Boris will swat aside demands for IndyRef2 whatever happens in May. Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes. I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
Considering it would give him an even bigger majority in parliament, the SNP threatening to do a Sinn Fein would make Boris less likely to agree to indyref2, to be honest.
But how would we cope without Ian Blackford's laborious and laboured questions?
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
Out of $14 BILLION revenue in 2019: - "Cost of revenue" ("insurance costs, credit card processing fees, hosting and co-located data center expenses, mobile device and service expenses, amounts related to fare chargebacks and other credit card losses, excess Driver incentives, and costs incurred with carriers for Freight transportation") 7.2 billion - Operations & support 2.3 bn - Sales & marketing 4.6 bn - R&D 4.8 bn - Admin 3.2 bn
IE 8.5 bn more than the commission they make.
They simply piss it all away on inefficient posh technology (and silly ads, and posh offices and absurd driver incentives), while their competitors make do with Nellie and a smelly cellphone in an even smellier office.
Meanwhile: Uber's share of the London taxi market is about 1%
Don't know if I got the quoting right... But...
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
There's a marginal cost in having @LadyG 's Uber sitting around the corner waiting to pick her (?) up. What I think would be key to profitability is how long the average Uber driver is on charge and earning money for himself and the company. If it is not enough Uber have to subsidise him to sit there or he cannot make a living and will do something else.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
Edinburgh Uber's are fully licensed minicabs aren't they?
No, in that they can't pick people up at random. They have to be ordered. But I think Edinburgh has insisted that they have to meet minicab standards for safety, hygiene etc.
That's what I mean, all minicabs have to be pre-booked, Uber or not. Only Black cabs can do ad-hoc on street pickup.
I think the whole 'must be booked' idea harks back to when landlines were the primary means of remote contact. Booking to address = insurance.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Govt accepted amendment in Committee yesterday to make Ynys Mon a protected constituency. So now five in total.
But did Chloe Smith misspeak in Committee?
John Spellar:
"Can we have some clarity on how the arithmetic works? Will Wales be taken as a block and allocated a number of seats, from which the protected seat would then be abstracted and its quota spread among the other seats? Alternatively, will Wales’s population be included with England’s and Scotland’s, so that all the protected seats are taken completely out of the equation and the basic figure for constituencies will be decided quite separately from the protected constituencies?"
Chloe Smith:
"I believe it is the former ………….."
Surely it is actually the latter - ie the five seats are excluded and then UK population (excluding 5 constituencies) is used to allocate seats to the four nations by formula.
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Gentiles? That's BILLIONS of people. As for BAME, if we need a word in certain circumstances to describe non whites (which I think we do) and BAME were to fall out of favour it would have to be replaced with an alternative. So I suppose we will stick with it unless or until that alternative comes along.
When some people often put in the BAME category are finding the category meaningful and helpful and some often put in the BAME category are finding it meaningless and demeaning, some of them having strong feelings about it both ways, it would seem understandable for non BAME's to have a period of silence on the subject. Except of course that for some 'silence is complicity'.
For myself I totally support the BAME group who find the category useless but would not dare to say so.
But you just did! You're saying you see no need for ANY aggregate bespoke term for ethnic minorities other than ethnic minorities. Fair enough.
And seriously, would you really be scared to voice that opinion other than anonymously? I hope not. I think that's being way more tiptoey than is necessary. It's the sort of place that too much listening to the antiwokies on here will take you to.
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
No, symptomatic but mild cases would form the larger part of the undiagnosed case iceberg in the UK.
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
It's not PHE. It's Hancock pushing through a rubbish contract with Deloitte that didn't oblige them to provide the data.
Lumping together millions of people that have nothing particular in common bar not being white, I suppose it could come across as a little patronising...
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
No, symptomatic but mild cases would form the larger part of the undiagnosed case iceberg in the UK.
So, on the back of the Italian data, what multiple do we apply to them?
What I am not getting is why the Pillar 2 cases are not ending up in Pillar 1 as some of those afflicted end up in hospital. Is it because the Pillar 2 cases are younger and not actually all that ill? In which case is this a slightly unnecessary panic?
Maybe I am missing something.
I linked this article on PB two months ago. You would think they would have sorted it out by now (not sure who the "they" are). Note the deflection from DHSC in response below.
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
I think that that is a slightly different incompetence in that local NHS units could not get access to testing that they were not doing themselves. It seems belatedly fixed after an appalling delay.
The question is really do we have hotspots of the virus or a better in some areas than others trace and test system? I'm honestly not sure but if I was the government I would want to be eliminating the latter option before I introduce localised lockdowns.
The May article contained a claim from DHSC that they were sharing this test data with PHE and were ”developing a solution” for others such as local authorities to access data. Presumably that last was never done.
I guess whether lockdowns are needed is a function of how effective the contact tracing is in reaching potentially infected individuals and getting them to self-isolate. There seems to be some dispute about the proportion of potentially infected people being reached.
As I say, I don't think the issues with the Leicester lockdown are just about data sharing. It seems the situation was allowed to get out of control with no planning or coordination put in place.
Boz the Bluster. Can he fix it? On the evidence of his latest outing at prime minister’s questions, the answer is a categorical no. Right now you wouldn’t trust Boris Johnson to get himself dressed in the morning, let alone get dragged around the park by Dilyn the dog.
Six months into his term of office, he already looks a spent force. A man desperately playing catch-up as he tries to respond to events that are out of his control.
“We are the builders, you are the blockers,” he said, towards the end of his reply – if you can call it that – to Keir Starmer’s final question. “We are the doers, you are the ditherers.”
Even the most loyal Tory backbenchers in the chamber looked to be taken aback by that. Labour had not had anything to block – even assuming they wanted to – as the Tories had not built anything in the past decade. And when it comes to dithering, the prime minister has elevated it into an art form.
Not sure if these have been posted yet: General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8 General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9 Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6 Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5 Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8 North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7 Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5 Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14 President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20 President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15 Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
No. Trump has drifted to 3 but he still looks a clear lay to me. He won't quit the race, though, will he? I hope not and I think not - but what do you think?
I think that there is an outside chance he will. If things get as bad with COVID as Fauci is fearing, if Project Lincoln starts shrinking Trump's base by stripping off appalled thinking conservatives, if the economy shows no signs of recovery and Congress fails to keep supplementing unemployment benefits, if (etc...) - the numbers could start to get truly disastrous for Trump.
He then has a choice of how he wants to be a Loser - on his own terms which he can spin as he wishes by walking away, or on terms set by the electorate where the comparison will be Mondale. The thought of walking away will almost certainly cross his mind at some point. Not sure whether he would do it though - the ego thing will pull in both directions.
Thanks. Hmm. Yes. I wonder. He's 1.1 to lay for the nomination. My sense is he will be desperate to have the shot - the glory of 2016 when he confounded all still fresh in the mind and of course the ego trip of the campaign and the rallies etc etc - but 1.1 is tempting as a cheap hedge against profits lost by not being able to sell him on the spreads. Sort of thing. Not sure. Considering.
In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?
The locations to me run approximately NW to SE the length of the country and represent, as much as anything else, a border between higher incidence west of the line, and lower incidence east of the line - the wavefront of high infection if you like. This gets squeezed a little at the north end of the line, where in some places higher infection rates have approached from either side and squeezed in towards the Pennines last.
I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.
This clearly isn't a geographical issue.
I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.
Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?
Not seen an outbreak in Barnsley, but has been high for a few weeks with the outward spread from Sheffield.
Calderdale is pretty Asian, nothing doing - yet. Swale and Ashford which I'm sure would be up there if districts were included - they've had problems all month. Southend on Sea?? Northants as a county featured at the top of the chart a couple of weeks ago bridging Bedford and Leicester.
No, this bears some resemblance to the Weston outbreak.
I'm not saying large multigenerational households are not a factor at all, but geographical creep of outbreaks happened in Italy and permeated the mountain provinces of Lombardy quite late in the outbreak.
I thought our initial seeding was much more widespread than Italy? Obviously it then spread quicker in some areas. This seems to be a very long tail rather than a new outbreak as such.
It could of course be working conditions too - as seems to be the case in Leicester.
Note that Kirklees encompasses quite a lot of Calderdale.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
- thank you very much.
My pleasure.
And I suppose you too are a "liberal" like almost everybody on here is claiming to be?
I do think that liberals are over-represented on here, but having said that liberalism is a popular creed generally. 30% of electorate maybe? 45% conservative, 20% collectivist, 5% libertarian. Something like that?
I haven't seen that "conservative" defined yet - but your other numbers don't immediately strike me as badly off the mark.
Well ... I`ve had a go. But not happy with it. I find conservatism tricky to pin down:
Conservatives value traditions and family life and are patriotic. They like strong leaders who act in, and battle for, the national interest. They are monarchists. Conservatives are often religious - but even those who are not tend to prescribe a particular way of living and are often disapproving of others who deviate from this. They do not welcome diversity or eccentricity. They are not idealists and hold a lesser view of human nature compared to other ideologies.
Conservatives prioritise strong defence and policing. This is consistent with their wish to perpetuate the status quo. Generally, conservatives want to keep things as they are, because the way things are is the way things should be because this represents tried-and-trusted methods - and change costs money - a priority of habit over sudden change, if you like. Conservatives prioritise efficiency and hold respect for taxpayer funds.
It follows from all this that conservatives favour a small state and low taxation. Generally, conservatives argue that money is best left in the pockets of families, for them to maximise their own utility, rather than with the state. A mild to strong right wing position.
Many, but not all, conservatives disapprove of alternative lifestyles. They may not admit this. Generally they believe that it is normal, and therefore correct, for individuals to be heterosexual, to marry, have 2.4 children and to bring those children up in the way that they themselves were brought up.
Conservatives disapprove of dissent and protest. People should accept things as they are, including their station in life. Who said life is fair? Some conservatives believe in rank and status and class, thinking that a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to national well-being. Conservatives believe in duty.
Roughly the size of the number of cases known about already. Which means roughly 0.1% of the population (just over 600k) has had it. That would be very bad news.
Er no. Most people who have had it never had a test (back in March, April and May). Estimated to be more like 5% have had it (with big ranges in different locations. London maybe 20%, Wiltshire 1%?)
Comments
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 43 Biden +8
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 45 Biden +5
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 51, Trump 44 Biden +7
President Trump Job Approval CNBC/Change Research (D) Approve 43, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +14
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 39, Disapprove 59 Disapprove +20
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 44, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +10
President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 75 Wrong Track +50
So Trump still losing bigly in the battlegrounds, and his job approval is -10 to -20 across 4 different pollsters. 50% think the country is on the wrong track.
I understand others' caution about shy Trumpsters, swing back, and polls this far out. But I really am not seeing or feeling this as a close race.
Giving money away with no end goal is not a great business plan.
Thanks for the tip on Cafe du Monde. One for my next visit.
One thing that really struck me about Nawlins was the decadence of the rich white locals. I have a British friend who lives in the city and he took me to their bars and hangouts. My God, they love to party. And they do love their liquor.
And now I must do the opposite, and work. Good day to all
WOKE.
(And not a little scary.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-remdesivir-gilead-uk-lockdown-local-leicester/
For myself my inputs are
90,000 miles @ 45 mpg = 9100 litres @ £1.30 say £12,000 rounded up
Cost of car £7000
Sundry expenses - tyres, clutch change £3000 maybe (Bit high perhaps)
Insurance, tax £250 for 8 years = £2000 perhaps (Touch low ?
So it's 27 pence per mile as I forgot the car came with some numbers on it for the 24 pence...
What is the number any autonomous solution has to beat for the typical man or woman ?
What is Uber's cost now.
The BBC will face an existential moment, quite soon
Klopp is great.
If that is the case I am not sure what we are worrying about.
Mr Thibodeau would have worked on the Pontchartrain project in the 50s, after coming back from WWII. He was a structural engineer.
For the Chesapeake project, they had to build special ships to drive the concrete pillars into the bay floor for the causeway parts. One of them capsized and sank in the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962.
In all seriousness, I wonder what specifically is the issue? Is it workplaces, large household sizes, or something else?
NB I don't think the Leicester scandal is just on missing test data.
https://twitter.com/HSJEditor/status/1260469435183357954
So, how much does it cost to bring in each individual Uber customer? And what can you expect in profits from them? Are losses the result of poor unit economics? Or are they the result of an aggressive roll out where profits from early markets are swamped by losses caused by marketing spend in new markets?
Uber is - at heart - just a taxi cab agency. You remember the ones - you'd call and say "I want to go from 5 Station Road to Woolworths on the High Stret" and they'd send a car.
Because Uber's platform gave so much more to drivers (percentage-wise), and because it offered a superior experience to customers, it took a lot of share. Who uses Addison Lee any more?
I don't remember exactly what share of the fare Uber gets, but it's in the 15% range. Assuming CACs are reasonable (sub $100), and assuming that Uber can expect to earn more than $300 in fees (meaning $2-3,000 in rides) over a customer's lifecycle, then Uber is ultimately profitable. But if the number is $200 for CACs and they only get $1,500 in rides, then Uber is in terrible trouble.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that Uber is nearer the first than the second. I suspect that in mature markets, if they dial back marketing, they move fairly rapidly to cash flow positive. The issue is that they probably overspend on marketing because they need to show they're a growth company.
The question is really do we have hotspots of the virus or a better in some areas than others trace and test system? I'm honestly not sure but if I was the government I would want to be eliminating the latter option before I introduce localised lockdowns.
60,0000 miles @ 25mpg @ $2.50pg = $6,000
Cost of car $6500 (bought used)
Cost of insurance and tags 5*($400+$100) = $2,500
Maintenance 5*$1000 = $5,000
Total cost $20k, so 33 cents per mile.
Uber has appalling losses associated with its start-up food delivery business. Drivers hate Uber Eats because they sit at the restaraunts for ages. This means that Uber has to subsidise it compared to regular rides, which I suspect is "excess Driver incentives".
Plus I imagine Uber is overspending on admin and R&D spending. Self driving cars are not going to be an Uber speciality.
The only question that really matters is: do core unit economics work? Because if they do, everything else can be finessed. If they do not, then no amount of brilliat management can save them.
I think if the counties were being reported by lower tier authorities this might provide even a few more data points, e.g. a jump from Southend over into Kent. As it stands you just see the unitaries, and though Asian populations are a common theme why would they be particularly represented in a late June wave? Eid is long past.
https://twitter.com/RudyRivasAZ/status/1278348164009885697?s=20
He then has a choice of how he wants to be a Loser - on his own terms which he can spin as he wishes by walking away, or on terms set by the electorate where the comparison will be Mondale. The thought of walking away will almost certainly cross his mind at some point. Not sure whether he would do it though - the ego thing will pull in both directions.
This seems to me to severely restrict the markets in which Uber can hope to be successful. There may not be a big enough market in the UK outside London. My daughter uses Uber a lot in Edinburgh but drivers working for them seem pretty unhappy about their returns. They are just not busy enough. Only the absurd cost of a taxi plate there keeps them in the game.
I am told that multi-household extended families have still been mixing. It isn't just large single households.
Barnsley is definitely an exception though. Perhaps there's been a factory outbreak?
"Excess Driver incentives refer to cumulative payments, including incentives but excluding Driver referrals, to a Driver that exceed the cumulative revenue that we recognize from a Driver with no future guarantee of additional revenue."
For myself I totally support the BAME group who find the category useless but would not dare to say so.
Nicola has ruled out an illegal referendum so will be interesting to see where this goes.
I believe Pete Wishart used to drum for Runrig.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-could-boycott-westminster-if-indyref2-refused-mp-warns-2899906
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-bradford-and-london-boroughs-among-36-at-risk-areas-that-could-be-just-days-away-from-local-lockdowns-12018594
BTW the title in the link looks to be bollox - new infection rates are very low in London.
Calderdale is pretty Asian, nothing doing - yet.
Swale and Ashford which I'm sure would be up there if districts were included - they've had problems all month.
Southend on Sea??
Northants as a county featured at the top of the chart a couple of weeks ago bridging Bedford and Leicester.
No, this bears some resemblance to the Weston outbreak.
I'm not saying large multigenerational households are not a factor at all, but geographical creep of outbreaks happened in Italy and permeated the mountain provinces of Lombardy quite late in the outbreak.
Big jobs data number tomorrow .Unemployment rate forecast to fall from 13.3% to 12.5%
still extremely high relatively.
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1278236864810561536
A continuous fie on Lord Tebbit.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Govt accepted amendment in Committee yesterday to make Ynys Mon a protected constituency. So now five in total.
But did Chloe Smith misspeak in Committee?
John Spellar:
"Can we have some clarity on how the arithmetic works? Will Wales be taken as a block and allocated a number of seats, from which the protected seat would then be abstracted and its quota spread among the other seats? Alternatively, will Wales’s population be included with England’s and Scotland’s, so that all the protected seats are taken completely out of the equation and the basic figure for constituencies will be decided quite separately from the protected constituencies?"
Chloe Smith:
"I believe it is the former ………….."
Surely it is actually the latter - ie the five seats are excluded and then UK population (excluding 5 constituencies) is used to allocate seats to the four nations by formula.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-06-30/debates/7866ebaf-461e-47a8-b7f9-ea723dee9e2c/ParliamentaryConstituenciesBill(SeventhSitting)
And seriously, would you really be scared to voice that opinion other than anonymously? I hope not. I think that's being way more tiptoey than is necessary. It's the sort of place that too much listening to the antiwokies on here will take you to.
A private sector/outsourcing/contract failure.
I guess whether lockdowns are needed is a function of how effective the contact tracing is in reaching potentially infected individuals and getting them to self-isolate. There seems to be some dispute about the proportion of potentially infected people being reached.
As I say, I don't think the issues with the Leicester lockdown are just about data sharing. It seems the situation was allowed to get out of control with no planning or coordination put in place.
Orkney and Shetland ; Ynys Mon; Na h-Eileanan an Iar ; Isle of Wight and Argyll & Bute ?
Six months into his term of office, he already looks a spent force. A man desperately playing catch-up as he tries to respond to events that are out of his control.
“We are the builders, you are the blockers,” he said, towards the end of his reply – if you can call it that – to Keir Starmer’s final question. “We are the doers, you are the ditherers.”
Even the most loyal Tory backbenchers in the chamber looked to be taken aback by that. Labour had not had anything to block – even assuming they wanted to – as the Tories had not built anything in the past decade. And when it comes to dithering, the prime minister has elevated it into an art form.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/01/boz-the-bluster-gets-hammered-in-pmqs-whack-a-mole
It could of course be working conditions too - as seems to be the case in Leicester.
Note that Kirklees encompasses quite a lot of Calderdale.
Conservatives value traditions and family life and are patriotic. They like strong leaders who act in, and battle for, the national interest. They are monarchists. Conservatives are often religious - but even those who are not tend to prescribe a particular way of living and are often disapproving of others who deviate from this. They do not welcome diversity or eccentricity. They are not idealists and hold a lesser view of human nature compared to other ideologies.
Conservatives prioritise strong defence and policing. This is consistent with their wish to perpetuate the status quo. Generally, conservatives want to keep things as they are, because the way things are is the way things should be because this represents tried-and-trusted methods - and change costs money - a priority of habit over sudden change, if you like. Conservatives prioritise efficiency and hold respect for taxpayer funds.
It follows from all this that conservatives favour a small state and low taxation. Generally, conservatives argue that money is best left in the pockets of families, for them to maximise their own utility, rather than with the state. A mild to strong right wing position.
Many, but not all, conservatives disapprove of alternative lifestyles. They may not admit this. Generally they believe that it is normal, and therefore correct, for individuals to be heterosexual, to marry, have 2.4 children and to bring those children up in the way that they themselves were brought up.
Conservatives disapprove of dissent and protest. People should accept things as they are, including their station in life. Who said life is fair? Some conservatives believe in rank and status and class, thinking that a hierarchy of authority is most conducive to national well-being. Conservatives believe in duty.
Not Argyll & Bute.