The shift from male to female is fascinating. In younger drivers accidents are disproportionately male, I guess due to high testosterone buffoonery but in older drivers it's disproportionately female. My personal observation is that older male drivers are much more slow and less confident whereas females tend to be overly confident and driving way too fast, especially the ones in huge cars.
According to this women become more dangerous than male 17-24 year old drivers only when they reach 80+ whereas for men they only become more dangerous than female 17-24 year old drivers at 86+.
I actually think more should be done about younger drivers than older.
> The shift from male to female is fascinating. In younger drivers accidents are disproportionately male, I guess due to high testosterone buffoonery but in older drivers it's disproportionately female.
When you correct for population size, I think you’ll see that difference largely, if not completely, goes away. There are more women than men in the UK from age 50 upwards (https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/2025/)
One reason there are more females in accidents at the oldest ages is because the males are dead. In the UK, the average life expectancy for a female is 82.9 vs 77.9 for men, a 5-year gap.
Interesting to see the deep-dive on "younger car drivers", but not a pip about the old-age drivers. Yet we see from chart 1 that their casualty rate is far worse!
Yep. In practice, you've probably got a group of over 70s who are much safer drivers than the average 17-24 year old and some with declining eyesight who are worse. The test proposes to distinguish between the two
The issue is that the "over 70s" group, while on the whole averages out to moderate safety, includes a number of individuals that are very dangerous drivers (to themselves, and to others). If one looks at the overall statistics, the group as a whole looks ok, but those dangerous outliers are the ones that get the "press coverage" on the nightly news when they do cause an incident, skewing peoples view of "over 70s drivers".
I am not objecting to the test. I am disagreeing with the sweeping statement.
I think testing eyesight is important. In fact you need to make a declaration about your eyesight when you first get a license and when you renew after 70. There is no real enforcement of the former either (they just ask you to read a number plate at a distance IIRC).
So where has the profit, paid as bonuses to executives and shareholders, come from?
The UK water companies were paid extra to fix the infrastructure and the cash paid by the public has increased.
If you take a step back and look at your comment, you might realise that you are making the same point: businesses don't have to take any particular path...
Nokia must be desperate for cash.
Developing video codecs is a painful exercise as some part of the implementation almost always relies on prior art. The company that I worked for were sued for our implementation of an MPEG-2 codec, because of a similar patent owned by a troll.
These cases are what hold innovation back and are only attractive to the trolls because of how many h.264/h.265 codec instances are running out there.
The usual technique is to go for the little guys first and then move up the food chain.
> The patents were at the center of a legal dispute involving Lenovo in 2020, in which the computer maker claimed Nokia did not fully disclose its intellectual property interest to the ITU and ISO while the bodies were working to standardize H.264. That lawsuit was settled one year later, with Lenovo and Nokia agreeing on a cross-licensing agreement.
That looks like patent trolling to me: sue someone who’s not really in the business and settle so when you sue a bigger player you can tell the judge that this other company did the right thing and paid for your incredibly critical technology.
It's not to motivate a particular person to deliver more, it's to ensure that you're able to hire that person - if they would pay, for example, $2million, then no one with experience at managing decent size tech companies would apply as they can get a much better offer elsewhere.
Also, CEO compensation is effectively between the shareholders and the CEO - if the CEO is making the shareholders happy and they want to gift him $200m for no good reason, well, it's their right to do so, it's their money to spend or waste as they wish, not the employee's.
The question isn't whether someone would work for $250m but would not work for $150m; the question is whether someone would or wouldn't work for you for that amount. If someone else offers $200m to the same person, they would work for you for $250m and wouldn't work for you for $150m.
Warren Buffets salery has been $100.000 for decades. And as far as I know Berkshire doesn't do stock based compensation at all, Buffet just holds the shares he always held.
To beat competitors, not have tons of beemers for beemer sake. The motivation is relative. The 3 big "robber barons" of the late 1800's use to send each other brag-grams over who was richer.
