I’m sure car insurers pay out significantly more for vehicle damage than person damage. Most accidents don’t involve harm, but body shops are getting expensive. For WA:
> In 2019, there were 45,524 reported car accidents in Washington State. Although 32,106 resulted in no injuries, 325 were fatal and 973 resulted in serious injuries.
I'd bet that the median claim is quite different than the mean claim, because the outliers are so large. Much like the "shocking" statements you hear about wealth distribution -- the largest 10 are bigger than the bottom 50% or similar. That's how log-normal distributions work. Though of course the Gini coefficient can vary.
I've wondered what happens if I have an at-fault collision where I total a hypercar whose value exceeds my maxed-out $2 million liability coverage. Can the car owner come after me for the difference?
Yes, you're ultimately liable for damages you cause.
I would expect your insurance to ask the damaged party to release you from further liability as a condition of accepting settlement at the coverage limits, but if the damages are significantly over the coverage limits and it seems likely that they could significantly collect on a judgement beyond your coverage, it's a possibility.
Umbrella insurance can go up to much higher limits ($2M is maybe already be an umbrella policy), sometimes up to $10M is easy to get, and depending on your insurer, often the upper millions are much less expensive. The tail risk is pretty small. If you're worried about it, may as well ask for quotes at $5M and $10M.
Pop a loop around a Markov chain that provides a "tape interface" and you have something capable of simulating a Turing machine. So when people bring up the Markov chains argument, they're saying next to nothing about the potential computational abilities of the system, even though they usually intend to dismiss it.
I tend to see people bringing that up in a dismissive way (not suggesting you are) as a clear indication they either haven't thought the argument through or do not understand how little it takes for a system to be Turing complete, and so for that argument to be meaningless.
I realize I wasn't clear about that - these notebooks are well-liked and have tons of positive reviews. There is no low sales signal, because people who don't care about the labels still buy the notebooks. It's that they're missing more sales from the people who don't buy them because of the ugly labels on the front. That would be the same with TVs, the only way a TV maker would really know is if they sold a "bedroom TV" and saw no one was buying it or it was getting a lot of returns for the LED indicators being too bright. Even then, if you have consumers who are cognizant of bright LEDs and can't find any information about it, it might still not be indicated in the sales that certain consumers don't want it.
Will they even know to hire a UX researcher?
But even then, as just a consumer, antireviews would be super helpful.
I imagine the signal they measure is AB test / throw crap at a wall type scale i.e. they trial lots of lines of product and scale-up and restock those doing great margin/numbers and drop those that don't. They don't care too much about subjective product picker's design opinions or user reviews - if it sells, it's stocked.
I also expect the demographic they are selling to are impulse buyer notebook neophytes. The lettered purpose on the front triggers those buyers. They buy the product and put it to one side, never to use it. Repeat buyers that care about the notebook design probably turn to specialist brands they multi-buy online.
They can compare sales figures with other notebook brands', if they buy some competitive intelligence or do some sleuthing. Opportunity cost of lost sales.
I pine for the day when "hella-" extends the SI prefixes. Sadly, they added "ronna-" and "quetta-" in 2022. Seems like I'll have to wait quite some time.
For anyone wondering "queca" would be the normal spelling of the "profanity" although it's probably one of the milder ways to refer to "having sex". "Fuck" would be "foda" and variations. Queca is more of a funny way of saying having sex, definitely not as serious as "fuck".
Hyundai Kona on the other hand was way more serious and they changed it to another Island in the Portuguese market. Kona's (actual spelling "cona") closest translation would be "cunt", in the US sense in terms of seriousness, not the Australian more light one.
> Two of the suggestions made were brontobyte (from 'brontosaurus') and hellabyte (from 'hell of a big number'). (Indeed, the Google unit converter function was already stating '1 hellabyte = 1000 yottabytes' [6].) This introduced a new driver for extending the range of SI prefixes: ensuring unofficial names did not get adopted de facto.
From the anthropology I've been reading, it seems that many societies got by with debt -- and complex forms of it! -- with no need for money. Especially because of their long lives and stable communities, debt relations would be effective for elves. Money is only necessary in a society where a transaction is indeed transactional, independent from future relationship.
