I'm not sure I'd trust lowest bidder flag of convenience ships operating beyond national law to operate a reactor safely without ever dumping radioactive material in the only ocean we have.
To say nothing of the 200 or so ships lost at sea every decade. Not evenly distributed across the oceans, but concentrated in sea lanes, especially near ports and land, especially choke points such as straits, capes, and canals.
The scale of operations, with ~80,000 registered commercial large ships, regulation of an international activity dominated by lowest-cost, least-regulated, flag-of-convenience registries (as you note), very often minimally-trained, and very disempowered crews (authoritarian / high-gradient socio-economic-political power discrepencies play a role in numerous accident dynamics), training, and scrapping practices all put a distinct chill in that notion.
I'm reminded of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery : 1,400 tonnes of explosives sunk in the Thames estuary. At least it's safeish as long as nobody touches it. The couple of nuclear reactors in subs that have already sunk are I believe in deep distant water, losing one inshore would be a serious problem.
Biofuels are a much simpler carbon-free option for ships. Cargo ships are built and scrapped, made to last only a few decades. Powering them with nuclear would be insanely cumbersome and expensive.
Second - the output itself depends on management, so I'm not sure it would be fair to compare current production numbers to show the potential help to the population. In fact - Venezuela has more proven reserves per-capita than Norway, by an incredible margin:
The media might not be intentionally manipulating the stock so much as publishing information which short sellers find, package, and hand over for free. The incentive is there to create a misleading information campaign even without assuming the media is being very deliberate or coordinating.
Edit: I have no idea why I'm being so downvoted here. All I am saying is that short sellers have incentive to hand the media whatever they can to help their case (not so controversial, right?) and that the media might be taking it for free rather than, as the parent poster says, coordinating to specifically harm Tesla (is this the controversial bit?)
Right. Tesla short-sellers and media critics say all their doings are virtuous and normal actions in the context of stock markets, but I think the intensity of the feeding-frenzy makes it all a bit weird.
For example, let's say I think IBM has oversold 'Watson' AI. I would take a short position in IBM and start publishing my concerns. Fair enough. But if I start camping outside every hospital that uses Watson, badgering staff going in and out, it should at least raise eyebrows... Same with all the claims the Tesla short-sellers manage to spread by spending their lives flying planes over factories and camped out near parking lots trying to count vehicle production/sale figures, leading to mainstream media publishing vague allegations like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/business/tesla-cars-quest...
Others are suggesting practical reasons for having watch history enabled, but I would think that the vast majority have it enabled simply because that is the default.
I was also under that impression until the Cloudflare event happened. I do not actually know what their dependency was, but all shops were taken offline.
It's worth noting that there are a few open source email marketing platforms out there too. Sendy is $60 and obfuscates some of the source code.
Mautic and Mailtrain are two that I have tried. In my experience, both have some odd areas, but Mautic is a bit more flexible and has fewer significant bugs.
I've wondered if, in this context that we are in, it actually starts to make sense to both raise interest rates and simultaneously monetize government debt.
We want some inflation, but we also do not want a late-1980s-style Japanese asset price bubble.
I cannot find a real answer to this question anywhere - would this plan produce any negative effect? The plan would, as far as I can tell, help the long-term outlook of our currency and economy while incentivizing wealthy people to stay invested.
I might be missing something obvious. Maybe this would lead to businesses having a harder time employing because of the higher borrowing cost (but we are at full employment now), or maybe the effect is just too uncertain on the money supply. Either way, I really want to know the answer, so I'm asking it here.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that politicians have direct control over monetizing debt, but rather that the central bank deems this to be best for the economy in the long term.
