recentpopularlog in

charlesarthur : cost   5

600K bitcoin miners shut down in last 2 weeks, F2Pool founder estimates • CoinDesk
Wolfie Zhao:
<p>Between 600,000 and 800,000 bitcoin miners have shut down since mid-November, amid declines in price and hashrate across the network, according to the third-largest mining pool.

In an interview with CoinDesk, Mao Shixing, founder of F2pool, said his firm’s estimate takes into account the total network hashrate drop and the average hash power of older mining machines that are having a hard time generating profits.

According to <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate?timespan=30days&daysAverageString=7">data from blockchain.info</a>, the bitcoin network’s entire hashrate, which captures the aggregated computing power on the world’s first blockchain, has dropped from around 47m tera-hashes per second (TH/s) on Nov. 10 to 41m on Nov. 24 – an almost 13% decline.

Mao explained most miners that may have halted operations are likely those using older models, such as the Antminer T9+ made by Bitmain and AvalonMiner 741 by Canaan Creative. These miners have an average hash power of around 10 TH/s and are estimated to be losing money right now, according to F2pool’s <a href="https://www.f2pool.com/miners">miner revenue index</a>…

…Stepping back, Mao said there are multiple factors that contributed to the shakeout among miners, including the recent market decline that followed the bitcoin cash hard fork on Nov. 15; an increase in electricity costs in China; and the fact that Chinese manufacturers are still racing to upgrade their products, making older machines increasingly uncompetitive.</p>


The bitcoin cash hard fork increasingly looks like a key reason for the price crash of the past couple of weeks, by forcing some miners to liquidate large amounts of bitcoin in order to buy new kit. The question is whether once they have new kit they will find anyone interested in the processing they have to offer.
bitcoin  mining  cost 
november 2018 by charlesarthur
New auto safety technologies push repair bills up • IEEE Spectrum
Robert Charette:
<p>There is little debate over whether advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) could reduce both the number and severity of vehicle crashes. A 2015 study [PDF] by the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association and Boston Consulting Group says equipping new vehicles with technologies including blind-spot warning, lane-departure warning, and collision-mitigation braking systems could eventually save 10,000 lives and eliminate or reduce the severity of millions of nonfatal injuries from motor vehicle accidents.

The additional cost of these advanced driver-assistance systems has slowed their adoption, however. A collision-mitigation system alone can increase the cost of a new vehicle by US $1,500 or more. Further, new research by the American Automobile Association (AAA) shows a significant increase in the cost of repairing these systems after even a minor accident. This finding could put off auto buyers even more.

According to AAA research, vehicles equipped with advanced safety features “can cost twice as much to repair following a collision due to expensive sensors and their calibration requirements.” For instance, a windshield repair for vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warning systems could run as high as $1,650, the AAA found. This is in comparison to a typical windshield replacement cost which runs $210 to $230, although it is not uncommon to see it go as high as $500, according to Glass America.</p>


Would it make you drive more carefully, perhaps?
car  repair  cost 
november 2018 by charlesarthur
Farewell, Google Maps • In der Apotheke
Bartłomiej Owczarek and Tomasz Nawrocki run a startup which helps people find medicines at p[hysical pharmacies; they've previously used Google Maps, but suddenly found the prices rising dramatically:
<p>After a conference call with Google Maps customer service (who, contrary to the email, offered no discounts or credits whatsoever) we realised that price increases are huge:

• Current free usage limit of 750k requests monthly turns into ca. 28k requests (almost 30 times less)

• Current $0.5 for commercial usage becomes $7 (14 times more), $5.60 with high volume

Importantly, prices are the same from US to the Africa, despite the fact that revenue generation is vastly different in most developed countries compared to the others. We know it well from comparing Polish market to Germany, as we expand there. 

Comparison of Google Maps monthly bill before and after price hike
<img src="https://whereigetmymeds.azureedge.net/img/2018/maps-monthly-cost-en.jpg" width="100%" />

If we maintained current monthly usage of both maps and Places (ie. location search), the cost of Google Maps would be multiple times higher than the total cost of all other infrastructure.</p>


They are going with MapBox and MapTiler - but also swapped in some code so that they can quickly swap between providers.
google  maps  mapping  cost 
july 2018 by charlesarthur
It takes 11 months for Netflix to achieve payback on each new US subscriber • Videonet
John Moulding:
<p>Netflix’s cost of adding new subscribers in the U.S. has rocketed in recent years, reaching $100 per net new subscriber, according to figures from Ampere Analysis, a leading research/analyst firm covering the entertainment sector. The cost of acquiring each new U.S. subscriber was stable at around $60 between 2013-2015, Ampere Analysis notes.

The company says 14% of Netflix’s expenditure is on marketing related costs today. Increased marketing spend, combined with falling subscriber growth on its home soil, mean it takes the SVOD giant 11 months to achieve payback on net new domestic customers.

Ampere Analysis believes that if international markets follow the same trajectory as the U.S., with increasing levels of marketing required to drive a steady rate of new customers, subscriber acquisition costs could rise to around one-fifth of Netflix’s total costs. Meanwhile, the analyst firm estimates that Netflix churn is running at 20% annually (you can see their methodology below).

“The lengthening payback period – coupled with ever-rising content costs – goes a long way to explaining Netflix’s recent testing of a new premium price tier,” Ampere Analysis declares. “That will help the streaming giant offset its rising cost base.”

Richard Broughton, Research Director at Ampere Analysis, says: “With declining domestic growth rates and spiralling acquisition costs, Netflix faces a very real set of challenges if it is to continue to command such a strong position. Our research shows that while Netflix can continue to enjoy relatively low acquisition costs for international subscribers and a buoyant market keen to embrace SVoD, it cannot afford to take its eye off the ball in the domestic market, even momentarily. Its ability to grow ARPU will be critically important to manage long-term growth – domestically and abroad.” </p>


To me that sounds... OK? Outside the US, the cost is $40-$45. With its growing catalogue and excellent interface, it has the killer product as fast internet spreads. Its UI in particular is so well tuned - if you compare it with rivals, it's streets ahead.
netflix  ui  churn  cost 
july 2018 by charlesarthur
The EPA owes us a reason for killing clean power plan • Bloomberg
Cass Sunstein:
<p>When a company emits a ton of carbon dioxide, what damage has it caused, exactly? The answer is called the “social cost of carbon,” which may be the most important number that you’ve never heard of.

If the number is large, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will be amply justified. If it is small, not so much. In proposing to scrap the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that the social cost of carbon is close to zero. Well, a bit higher than that, but not a lot.

More remarkably still, the EPA offered hardly any reasons for its decision. As Ring Lardner once put it: “Shut up, he explained."…

…In 2010, the group [convened in part by Sunstein to price that social cost] produced a central value of $21 for the social cost of carbon. By 2016, new research resulted in an update, yielding a figure of $36.

For policy, that number matters, because it can play a big role in deciding on whether to go forward with numerous regulations -- and in producing the chosen level of stringency. The group’s estimate was also upheld in court.

But science and economics continue to evolve. A more recent estimate, by Yale economist William Nordhaus (often mentioned as a candidate for the Nobel Prize), finds that the $36 figure is just a bit too high; he favors $31. Other experts think that $36 is far too low, with estimates ranging to $200 or higher.

The EPA’s figure under President Donald Trump? Maybe $1. Maybe as high as $6.

How did it get there? The EPA knew enough not to deny that climate change is occurring. The major driver behind its low number was its decision to consider only damage to the US - and to ignore damage to people in every other nation on the face of the planet.</p>


"America First. Screw everyone else."
epa  carbon  cost 
october 2017 by charlesarthur

Copy this bookmark:





to read