joshhsoj1902

joined 2 years ago
[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 12 points 8 months ago

What a terrible graph. Market share as a percent on one side being compared to absolutely numbers on the other.

The author could draw any conclusions they wanted by just scaling the axis differently.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

I looked it up and it seems like the survival rate of new businesses is about 78% in the US.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/1-year-survival-rates-for-new-business-establishments-by-year-and-location.htm

The first year seems to be the hardest and each year after that survival rates get better and better.

This data suggests that after 10 years nearly 35% of business are still in business.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/34-7-percent-of-business-establishments-born-in-2013-were-still-operating-in-2023.htm

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How many new business fail?

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

I think that just shows you don't understand how to read statistics.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The article doesn't really go into details of what the developer has planned.

I have to assume they are looking to demolish the block and build something higher than 3 floors with a bunch more units?

It's unfortunate if the developer isn't offering any options for tenants to move back into the new building.

This doesn't feel like a renoviction though.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago (5 children)

That's not a reasonable assumption at all. Everything costs more today than it did 2 years ago, so it's very likely their expenses are higher than it was before.

It's also possible that their profits are way up, but the data you showed doesn't prove that at all.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago (7 children)

That image shows revenue not profit

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

We don't need to even do the math ourselves. It's already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I'm surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

What? You're the one claiming that various metals aren't infinitely recyclable.

It's true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn't really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I'm just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn't need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it's useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you're being downvoted.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can't get over this. We're talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you're talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that's what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that's it's my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Like I thought, you're misunderstanding what you're reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that's not because they aren't recoverable, that's because it's not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that's just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren't great at reading either. So I'll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

view more: ‹ prev next ›