joshhsoj1902

Lol.

There aren't even any major sporting venues in that area.

The people who you "know" clearly do not live in the area.

How are EVs not the solution for people who need vehicles?

Everytime I hear this, the response is "we need better public transit, and EVs for all the people who can't effectively be serviced by public transit"

Which is like sure, if we had more money we could solve both, and many places are trying to solve public transit (but it's slow and expensive to do right).

EVs are part of the solution. But there are many parts to this solution. Pretending that EVs aren't needed doesn't actually help at all.

I thought I listed a bunch of cases where there were options (and not monopolies). But yes, 100% inside many ecosystems are monopolies, and those ecosystems/walled gardens have been slowly expanding every chance these companies have.

I'm saying the competition can only exist because products that actually fill the same need.

If you decide that you need product A, and have multiple options on where to get that, you have competition.

So if you're looking for a Cola, you have options.

If you're looking to play StardewValley, you have options where you want to buy it and which platform you want to play it on, you don't need to buy a new game system to play it.

If you're looking to play the latest Zelda game, you don't have options, you need to buy a Switch.

If you're looking to watch Ozarks, you don't have options, you can only watch Netflix.

If you're looking to just have something playing on TV and don't really care what it is, you have options.

If you're looking to listen to music, you have options, most of the steaming services have most of the music.

If you're looking to be able to text friends, you have options, any phone will work.

If you're looking to be able to iMessage friends and for your case only iMessage will work, iPhone is your only option.

Competition is complex and is more dependent on a consumer needs than just classification of what a product is. In your earlier point you used Apple as an example of a company that can increase prices despite competition, but really Apple is a prime example of a company putting up walls to an ecosystem making it really hard to leave once you're in.

Generally in the current tech landscape there barely is any competition outside openish platforms. But with tech, you often can't look at competition as product A vs Product B. Like while we can say that Window competes with OSx, it's harder to say that a Mac laptop competes with a given Dell laptop (because what you can do with each OS is different to different people).

This is why I like to think of all the tv streaming services as different types of food stores. There is no supermarket that supplies everything, you're forced to have memberships to the single butcher, the single milk man, the single bakery, etc. if you want a particular food, there is currently no (or very little) competition. You can certainly survive on just bread, and people are happy to do that, but that bakery can and will increase prices whenever because they aren't really competing with the butcher.

I still think you're looking at competition slightly wrong.

Coke and Pepsi do compete with eachother, along with the rest of the drink market. And overall prices in that industry are pretty low, some people will buy other competitors (the store brand Cola's). But overall competition is working.

Apple only kinda competes. Sure a phone is a phone and a laptop is a laptop. But unless someone is entering the market for the first time. They already have applications they are looking to use, so if you need an iPhone, you need an iPhone, and same for a Mac. But if you're an android or Windows user, suddenly you have a lot more choice because there is lots of competition!

The reason companies setup walled gardens, or pay for exclusive access to a piece of media is to erode competition. If a user wants that thing, they can only get it from that one place.

It's only competition if they provide similar products.

The current landscape is like farmers markets and butchers. Sure they both provide food, but they don't really directly compete with eachother.

This isn't completely true, but it is the current standard.

A website can detect and block many user/password attempts from the same IP and block IPs that are suspicious.

Websites can detect elivated login fails across many IPs are react accordingly (It may be reasonable to block all logins for a time if they detect an attack like this)

I'm sure there are other strategies, I don't know how often they are actually employed, but I wish companies would start taking this sort of attack more seriously (even if it's not at all hacking)

Isn't Ethereum using proof of stake now? I don't think GPU mining exists for it these days.

A properly sized natural gas tankless works pretty well.

Electric tankless on the otherhand take so much power I can't imagine anyone actually installs them in a home.

He's assuming based of you suggesting the guy in the article do something less great than what he actually ended up doing.

On a similar note.

Just because a politician looking to be voted into power suggests a simple solution for something, don't blindly assume that solution will actually have any impact.

For anyone not reading the article.

The truck came with an 80 AMP charger (I'm assuming it's the one that also lets the truck power the house).

His house is currently only a 100 AMP service, so he would need to update the panel to 200 AMP.

The transformer his house uses and shared with his neighbors is already at capacity and would need to be upgraded (that's the bulk of the 12k charge)

He ended up installing a different 30AMP charger which is still more than he needs (I believe he also acknowledged that the 15 AMP household outlet would also have worked for his needs)