When the charity sells the stock, what cost basis do they use? Market price on the day they received it?
I've donated £5000 again.
3Thanks! It mostly did better at object recognition than me. I imagine I'd have improved with the full res unscuffed images, but I still don't think I'd have recognized the fridge so quickly (though admittedly it wasn't helpful). The only place I thought I'd have done better was when it got confused by the door in the mirror.
I'm interested.
Hm, I think I'd bet against this:
- The instruction referred to "the doorway on your left", not "on the left"; "on your left" is even worse in context.
- It doesn't give a coherent world model that the rest of its instructions follow. e.g. if it thinks I didn't take a photo from that door when it asked me to, then its instruction "walk straight ahead past where that bedroom doorway was on the left" gets me past the kitchen again.
Overall agreed, but I note that the video (which I enjoyed) is a significantly different challenge - when the dad starts sliding the bread around the table with his knife, he doesn't give the kid a chance to say "ah, I see the problem! You need to dip the knife in the peanut butter..."
The EU executive, on the other hand, where most of the real power lies, is apolitical, and the individual commissioners are appointed by member states, not by political parties.
What does apolitical mean in this context?
Like if Fred's business costs $1m to start and creates $100k/year surplus value, it gets paid off in ten years
Oh, not quite. "Costs $1m to start" sounds like it's talking about the cost to Fred. Some of that will be e.g. wages paid to construction workers. For this accounting to work, we need to talk about the costs to society versus the value to society. (The costs to society being similar to those from Tom's shop - space, time and materials.)
The only one losing out is Fred.
The article mentions fixed costs of building Tom's business. Like if Fred's business costs $1m to start and creates $100k/year surplus value, it gets paid off in ten years, which seems like a good return on investment. If Tom's building costs $1m to make and only creates an extra $10k/year surplus value (growing the market a little but mostly taking Fred's business), it gets paid off in 100 years, which seems like a bad return on investment.
I guess some things involved in the fixed costs are
- Tom's space isn't used for some other purpose
- Time and materials spent building Tom's shop are lost
How much should we expect the market to be like "well, if Tom's business is a net negative socially, then I'll be able to find some other use for that location and time and materials, which will leave society-at-large better off"? I don't know.
Yep. If you have a sattelite picture of an oil tank with a floating lid, you can compare the shadow cast on the ground against the shadow cast on the lid to see how full it is.