Rivalarrival

joined 1 year ago
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, but you'd fuck Jar Jar, so...

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 2 months ago

Hybrid hard drive. Basically, a hard drive with a large solid state cache.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago

Actual shipping would vary depending on location, but sellers are padding the shipping charge so they can display a lower unit price.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago

There's a little to be said for it, sure.

I use nearlyfreespeech.net for personal hosting. They charge me about 10 cents a day.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It doesn't work that way at all.

Pricing strategy generally calls for optimizing return. They calculated that this company has 342 customers. Each customer adds $28 in costs. The unknown is how many additional customers will choose to buy at a particular price point.

If we halve the price paid by the customer (and add $28 to account for our increased costs) will we at least double our customer base to 684?

If we halve that price again (and add another $28), will we at least double our customer base again, to 1368?

At some point, lowering the price any further will not gain enough customers,, and that is the minimum price we can charge while maintaining our current profits. The article went well beyond that point, contemplating a price point that would provide only 30% of their current profits.

If they lowered their price point to, say, $2700/yr, they would only need to add about 5100 new customers to break even with their $42,222 price. I think they would attract a hell of a lot more than 5100 new customers at that price point, meaning they would be radically increasing their revenue and profits. They are currently earning far less than they could be by demanding so much.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago

Just to expand your math in a different direction, going from 342 customers to 684 adds $9576 in costs, but cuts the price by 1/2 (plus $28). $21,139.

Going from 684 customers to 1368 adds another $19152. They break even at a $10,598 price point.

From 1368 to 2736 customers adds another $38304 in costs, but reduces the break even price point to $5327.

From 2736 to 5472 customers, another $76608 in costs, and a break even price point of $2685.

They are recouping all their additional costs, and making exactly the same profit charging 5472 people $7/day instead of 342 customers $115/day.

How many of those 1.2 million HIV patients can afford $7/day? If just 1% of them are willing to pay $7 a day, they will more than double their profits.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not really needed with dynamic DNS able to point back to a web server on your own network.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 26 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Need to add shipping charges to the price...

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago

This wasn't "negligence" or "accidental". He was deliberately pointing the gun at the individual. It wasn't unintentionally pointed at him. It wasn't accidentally pointed at him. The bullet didn't unexpectedly ricochet off of something to hit the teen. He deliberately chose to point a gun at another person. That deliberate handling of the gun eliminates the possibility of "negligence".

I don't quite know how you didn't, but you managed to piss off both gun owners and hoplophobes with that comment, and those groups can't seem to agree on anything else.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which was invented in 1846 and available from refineries long before diesel (1894) and gasoline (1892). Refineries were producing fuel that jets could burn long before jets existed. Most military aircraft can burn diesel or ordinary kerosene if jet fuel isnt available, they just need to be careful to avoid gelling, which can occur in the cold air at high altitude.

GPS is needed for a certain degree of precision in standoff weapons. Without it, they have to rely on laser or TV guidance, or dead reckoning. The ring laser gyros and accelerometers they use in their inertial guidance systems are far more accurate than the guidance systems used aboard V1 and V2 rockets, which were themselves surprisingly effective.

GPS is not required for navigation of manned aircraft: they can rely on terrestrial radio beacons or dead reckoning with their own inertial navigation systems.

I can't think of a weapons system that actually requires Internet access.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think modern Rangers hold significant advantage over WWII rangers. I think they would actually be a detriment, as the WWII rangers were familiar with the technologies available in that time period. Those modern rangers do carry more radios than the entire invading force had during D-Day. But, any base you send will have plenty of radios to issue.

My first thought was Norfolk. They've got enough ASW assets to stop the U-boats that were decimating the convoys. Yeah, they won't be able to rearm modern weapons or repair/replace certain damaged systems, but with the U-boats out of the way, the original fleet would have been much more successful. Even after the modern weapons are exhausted, the C3/ISR capabilities of the future fleet will greatly enhance the operations of the past.

My second thought is Wright Patterson AFB, home of the US Air Force museum. Designers get to tear apart aircraft that wouldn't be built until after the war, but not so advanced that they exceed the past nation's ability to produce. They get turbine engines 4 years early, and figure out all the transonic effects thet kept them from breaking the sound barrier. Turboprop-powered heavy bombers, flying higher and faster than anything the Axis can throw at them. Turboshaft powered submarines, destroyers, PT boats, helicopters, tanks

Third thought is to skip straight to the endgame and try to accelerate the Manhattan project. It might be a bit of a stretch to call it a "military base", (and it's not on the list above) but we could send them the Savannah River site. They get more plutonium than they know what to do with. With enough plutonium, they can afford to drop demonstration bombs in unpopulated areas of both the Asian and European theaters, possibly without needing to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki. We can avoid the need to invade both Japan and Germany.

Any base we send would have modern computers and some programmers. The German Enigma code could be brute-forced in a matter of hours on a modern computer. That alone is going to shorten the war in Europe by months to years.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ok, I don't think you read what I wrote.

Everytime you read "Starlink", I want you to think about a flashing anti-collision beacon on a radio tower. Because that is what a Starlink transceivers looks like to every ELINT operator aboard, and on every nearby ship. Imagine a ship with a giant red blinky light on it, because that's what an ELINT technician would be seeing.

She would have had to have recruited every ELINT technician and supervisor aboard every vessel they sailed with to make this happen.

view more: ‹ prev next ›