Absolutely, it is essential to always run the numbers. I was once offered a sizable rebate if I accepted a non-0% car loan, but no rebate if I paid cash or had my own financing. Since their loan had no early-repayment penalty – and I demanded this in writing – I accepted their loan and paid it off upon the first statement.

My suspicion is that that sort of offer was to boost the commissions earned by the loan brokers, rather than to move cars. Or maybe both. Who knows.

0% interest offers show up fairly frequently in the USA, often as general-purpose credit cards, or for car or furniture payments, in addition to the many buy-now-pay-later services that allow financing almost anything. However, the motives for offering 0% are slightly different for each of these products.

But answering the question directly, a 0% offer is beneficial if you were already going to make the purchase and would finance it. Cheap credit makes it easy to overspend, since the payments will be “tomorrow’s problem”. For people who can afford to pay for something in full, it might still be beneficial to finance with 0% just to conserve cash on hand. But the tradeoff is having to service the debt with regular payments; missing one payment can cause the debt to resume at an exorbitant rate. It takes a decent amount of financial discipline to make a 0% offer work in your favor.

Going back to why 0% offers even exist, I’ll use furniture and cars as they’re the historic examples. Furniture is expensive, whether it’s a sectional sofa or a queen-size bed with frame and storage. There’s also a sizable markup for furniture, and competition between furniture stores is strong. Thus, to help entice people to buy furniture, sellers will offer 0%, outsourced to a loan company, with the loan subsidized by some of the profit margins.

For cars, the equation is slightly different. Sure, cars are an order of magnitude more expensive, but that also means the opportunity cost for dealers to offer 0% is correspondingly larger. Instead, 0% financing for cars is almost always subsidized by the manufacturer, not the dealers. This is a financial and business strategy that allows a car company to create more sales in a given quarter, if perhaps they need to meet certain year-end targets but are reluctant to reduce their list prices.

0% car loans induce more sales fairly quickly, but will draw on the company coffers in the years to come, because the loan company still wants their cut to be paid by someone. Consumers will usually benefit from these offers, as it’s rare for people to buy a new car outright.

It’s my opinion that if a car company has to subsidize loans to move their product, that’s a tacit admission that their product is wrongly priced or the competition is better. I would take this into consideration, although it wouldn’t necessarily carry the day when considering a purchase. After all, car payment interest is not insignificant.

A quick “rule” is to see how old the word/concept is. “plaintiff” would have existed almost as long as the English legal system came into being, or probably even older to the court of Assizes pre-12th century.

Whereas firefighter as a profession might have only become a word after the establishment of fire departments by insurance companies, which I think might have been a 19th century development.

This entire series by Cathode Ray Dude is a wonderful dive into the world of PC boot sequence, for the folks interested in a touch of embedded architecture. His delivery is also on-point, given the complexity and obscurity of the topics.

From this video alone (41:15):

The way this worked was: they installed Xen hypervisor on your PC, put Hyperspace in a VM and Windows in another. Now, you either know what a VM is – and I don’t need to explain why this is terrifying – or you don’t and I need to make you understand so you never independently invent this.

And (43:59):

This is just a bad idea, ok? Virtualization belongs in data centers. Putting some poor bastard’s whole OS in a VM is a prank. It’s some Truman Show shit. It’s disassembling the coach’s car and putting it back together inside the gym. It’s not remotely worth the trouble and it probably didn’t work.

There was a ton of hairbrained theories floating around, but nobody had any definitive explanation.

Well I was new to the company and fresh out of college, so I was tasked with figuring this one out.

This checks out lol

Knowing very little about USB audio processing, but having cut my teeth in college on 8-bit 8051 processors, I knew what kind of functions tended to be slow.

I often wonder if this deep level understanding of embedded software/firmware design is still the norm in university instruction. My suspicion has been that focus moved to making use of ever-increasing SoC performance and capabilities, in the pursuit of making it Just Work™ but also proving Wirth’s Law in the process via badly optimized code.

This was an excellent read, btw.

This sort-of happened in the USA, in a small way, during the fallout of the 2016 Wells Fargo scandal. Public sentiment of the big-name, national retail banks was awful and credit unions capitalized on the moment with advertisements contrasting profit-centric national banks with local, cooperatively-owned credit unions.

In this article where consultants to credit unions were queried a year later, there’s still some questions as to the long-term effects that may have benefited the credit unions.

I once came across a comment somewhere online that suggested – sadly without hard evidence – that the scandal may have been a win-win, since the sort of customers willing to uproot themselves from Wells Fargo tended to have smaller balances while still incurring the bookkeeping costs. And that credit unions were able to scale up to take in new customers while saving on advertising dollars.

It’s a plausible idea, that a new equilibrium would be found in the banking market. Logically extending the idea further, though, would lay bare how much additional integration credit unions would have to do with each other to achieve a truly seamless customer experience. Of course, with more young people mostly sticking to online and mobile banking, this might come in the form of backroom operational improvements, rather than a revamped brick-and-mortar experience.

Most commercial publications in the USA and UK – UPC/ISBN or not, regular or not – will often send copies of their work to the national library (ie Library of Congress). That said, those copies might not be prioritized for digital viewing. So seeing them in-person might be the only way to access them.

As for whether the publishing houses keep them, it’s probably very individualized, so who can say.

If you have a particular job focus for after you’ve graduated with your CS degree, would an internship with a related company be an option? Experience with web will be of limited use for an embedded job, and embedded experience is of limited use at a quantitative analysis company.

That’s not to say the experience is entirely pointless, since many skills across the various disciplines of CS are transferable.

The other answers have touched upon the relative efficiencies between a phone charger and a desktop computer’s PSU. But I want to also mention that the comparison may be apples-to-oranges if we’re considering modern smartphones that are capable of USB Power Delivery (USB PD).

Without any version of USB PD – or its competitors like Quick Charge – the original USB specification only guaranteed 5 V and up to 500 mA. That’s 2.5 W, which was enough for USB keyboards and mice, but is pretty awful to charge a phone with. But even an early 2000s motherboard would provide this amount, required by the spec.

The USB Battery Charging (USB BC) spec brought the limit up to 1500 mA, but that’s still only 7.5 W. And even in 2024, there are still (exceedingly) cheap battery banks that don’t even support USB BC rates. Motherboards are also a mixed bag, unless they specifically say what they support.

So if you’re comparing, for example, the included phone charger with a Samsung S20 (last smartphone era that shipped a charger with the phone) is capable of 25 W charging, and so is the phone. Unless you bought the S20 Ultra, which has the same charger but the phone can support 45 W charging.

Charging the S20 Ultra on a 2004-era computer will definitely be slower than the stock charger. But charging with a 2024-era phone charger would be faster than the included charger. And then your latest-gen laptop might support 60 W charging, but because the phone maxes out at 45 W, it makes no difference.

You might think that faster and faster charging should always be less and less efficient, but it’s more complex since all charging beyond ~15 Watts will use higher voltages on the USB cable. This is allowable because even the thinnest wire insulation in a USB cable can still tolerate 9 volts or even 20 volts just fine. Higher voltage reduces current, which reduces resistive losses.

The gist is: charging is a patchwork of compatibility, so blanket statements on efficiency are few and far between.

In agreement with the other comments, this is indeed a very dense diagram, specifically the right-side. Focusing on that some more, my chief concern is that this novel triangle representation is very easy to misread.

Let’s take the dot in the middle which has the arrow with “10M”. What would you say the car percentage for that dot is? The axis along the bottom of the triangle is labeled 0 to 100%, and the dot is just to the right of the 50% demarcation. So maybe 52% or 55% seems reasonable, yeah?

But the axis is deceiving: notice how the demarcation are all slanted at the bottom. The dot is actually representing about 42%, since although the axis is marked horizontally, the line which is 50% slopes north-east rather than straight up. You can see the 50% number itself is actually rotated 60 degrees counter-clockwise.

The public transit axis on the left of the triangle has its demarcations tilted clockwise by 60 degrees as well. Only the active transport axis matches the conventional Y axis.

For that UI/UX reason alone, I wouldn’t endorse this as a “great” depiction of statistical data. If a diagram can – intentionally or not – be used to mislead a casual reader, it’s not one we should put up on a pedestal.

I also had a gripe about the successive colors not being consistent for each mode of transport, but that’s minor and easily corrected. The tilted axes may require some reworking though.

Obligatory link to Statistics Done Wrong: The Woefully Complete Guide, a book on how statistics can and has been abused in subtle and insidious ways, sometimes recklessly. Specifically, the chapters on the consequences of underpowered statistics and comparing statistical significance between studies.

I’m no expert on statistics, but I know enough that repeated experiments should not yield wildly different results unless: 1) the phenomenon under observation is extremely subtle so results are getting lost in noise, 2) the experiments were performed incorrectly, or 3) the results aren’t wildly divergent after all.

I’m reluctant to upvote this, since it’s leaving out a lot of rather important caveats about the dataset. This depiction is presented as “the number of aviation incidents between the two giants since 2014 in the U.S. and international waters”. Here, “international waters” means the regions of the North Pacific Ocean, north Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico, whose airspace services are delegated by ICAO to the United States, administered by the FAA. It’s not US airspace, but it’s administered as if it was, meaning accident reports get filed with FAA and NTSB, the source of this data.

The other caveat is that the total size of the Boeing fleet flying through FAA-administered airspace versus the total Airbus fleet is closer to 2-to-1, with nearly twice as many Boeing aircraft as Airbus aircraft, using 2018 estimates. This is including all the aircraft which US airliners currently operate, not just the newest ones they’ve bought in recent years.

Finally, in the reporting parlance, an aircraft “incident” means a non-serious injury event that happened. If major injuries or death occurred, that would be an “aircraft accident”. So an incident could include anything like:

• Returning to the airport because of an unruly passenger
• Another aircraft getting too close but not requiring evasive manoeuvres (aka minimum separation violation)
• Overspeeding of the aircraft, such as exceeding 250 knots while still below 10,000 ft
• An engine failure
• A door plug falling off, causing minor injuries to three people but no deaths
• A passenger getting their arm stuck in the toilet while reaching for their dropped phone

What reasons could Boeing aircraft have more incidents? Sure, they might be shoddily assembled. But it could also be a matter of fleet distribution: if Boeing makes more wide-body aircraft than Airbus, and thus carry more passengers, then passenger-related incidents would be higher represented for Boeing aircraft. Suffice it to say, this single graphic isn’t giving enough depth to a complicated situation.