To maybe get a little carried away with the sci-fi for a minute, why does the Actuator need to cost anything?
When the tree of costs that make up a product are traced, surely all the leaf nodes are human labour? As in, to make the actuator, I had to pay someone to assemble it and I had to buy the parts. Each part had a materials cost and a labour cost. So it goes for the factory that made the fasteners, the foundry that made the steel, the mine that extracted the ore.
Shudder to think of how to regulate resource extraction in a future where AI humanoid robots are strip mining and logging for free.
> When the tree of costs that make up a product are traced, surely all the leaf nodes are human labour?
What about energy, real estate and taxes?
Even at the extreme end of automation, if you want iron ore, you need to buy a mine from somebody, pay taxes on it, and power the machines to extract the minerals and transport them elsewhere for processing.
The same logic applies to energy I think. We don't have to pay money to a wind turbine, or to a coal mine. We only pay money to humans to build the power plants and the grid.
If I were writing a sci-fi novel about this I don't know how I'd handle something real estate (or mineral rights or water rights). You already need permission from the government to extract resources.
As for taxes, why does the government even want the money? What are they going to do with it?
Energy, ultimately, requires real estate --and thus property taxes-- even at the logical extreme of automation.
> As for taxes, why does the government even want the money? What are they going to do with it?
There are websites that break down how e.g. different national/federal budgets are divvied up in the real world. Alternatively, I suggest a good book on macroeconomics; I am partial to Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics", but there are many others.
Here is a great Technology Connections video which lays out why the sizing issue might not be as bad as you're thinking. The gist is that many people are steered away from heat pumps (or sold very expensive oversized units) by outdated industry thinking which vastly overestimates load calculations.
I won't try to make his case here, but he is pretty convincing that a reasonably sized heat pump system can be sufficient even in very cold climates (by US standards).
It's all theoretical. In real life, retrofitting heat pumps into exisinting homes is a bit different, as those homes are neither made for air heat sources (at least in my region), nor they are insullated well. You might say, dough, insulate it, but it is easier said than done, as a lot of those old homes relied on their leakage for ventilation, not to mention that is very expensive investment (much more expensive than the heat pump itself).
I would reccommend keeping backup heat source when installing heat pumps into older homes. A simple wood stove, used during cold spikes, could be enough.
My country has subsidies for heat pump installations into older homes and it had requirement to get rid of chimneys to get that. After the whole europe energy crisis thing, this requirement is gone now. Turns out having alternatives is a good thing :)
This is not theoretical: my heat pump purchased in 2021 worked well for four straight days of below 0F. Kept our temp at 68 inside. We live in an old home from 1917 with poor insulation between the brick exterior walls and drywall.
This is why I opposed historical designations. Most old buildings are obsolete and need to be destroyed. There are only a tiny number of buildings that are really historic, sure save them, but the vast majority are just old and need to be knocked down for something better. If it isn't taught in history class then it isn't historic.
It is easy to see the loss of something old. However the opportunity cost from not building new is something that is very hard to get people to understand.
The readme of repository includes a paragraph suggesting that companies should reach out for a commercial license. For an MIT licensed codebase that is unusual. I believe the top-level commenter is assuming that discrepancy is by mistake and is giving a heads up.
From the readme:
>Note: Companies interested in purchasing a license to use the source code commercially can contact this number on WhatsApp
You are right, I forgot to delete the mit license.
I have now removed the mit license and modified the license to accommodate commercial use of the source code.
Not a lawyer, but can you retroactively apply your new license to the previous commits?
Pretty sure though any commercial entity that downloaded the code whilst it was MIT licensed (or if they just clone from the commit before you changed the license) that they can use the code with that license. Again, not a lawyer, I may be full of shit!
When using the previous MIT license, the original license and copyright must be included. The original license may change in this case, and the new license must follow the original one.
(As a local) it sounds weird to say "on Vancouver" without the island part. Vancouver means the city. If you want to sound cool you can say "the Island".
When the tree of costs that make up a product are traced, surely all the leaf nodes are human labour? As in, to make the actuator, I had to pay someone to assemble it and I had to buy the parts. Each part had a materials cost and a labour cost. So it goes for the factory that made the fasteners, the foundry that made the steel, the mine that extracted the ore.
Shudder to think of how to regulate resource extraction in a future where AI humanoid robots are strip mining and logging for free.