So, recently I got forced into replacing my "dumb" meter with a "smart" meter, and sure enough I get an email from my energy retailer that "Surprise! your electricity tariff is changing". Now this retailer send me this amazing news 4 days AFTER the tariff change took effect, but I have already come to a settlement with them about that gem.
Needless to say, with the subject of this post, I got plopped into a Demand tariff. At first glance it didn't look too bad, the daily charge was lower, the per kW charge was slightly lower as well, however it had a Peak Demand daily charge to figure out. Essentially they get energy usage from your meter every 30 minutes and the highest usage between the hours of 16:00 and 21:00 is the lucky winner for the Peak Demand charge. Each half hour block has a usage figure in kWh, so to get the Peak Demand you multiply that by 2. {X}kWh/0.5h.
This can lead to nasty surprises and sure sent my blood pressure when I worked it out, as I was on a quarterly bill cycle and those days since the change I would have had the car plugged in, plus people cooking etc. unaware of the peak demand impacts. This was somewhat mitigated when they automatically switched me to a monthly bill cycle. Having a spike 1 single day where you might turn on the A/C and be cooking using say, 5kW for half an hour... that'd be 2.5kWh at a rate of ~$0.26 for the electricity, or $0.65, however that one lapse has a daily charge of $0.35 per kW, per day so 5 x .35 x 30 days = $52.50. If your normal peak usage was around 1.5kW that adds $36.75 to your next bill. You used $0.65 worth of electricity, but it will cost you that plus $36.75. The thing is you may as well run the A/C *every* day because once you take that hit, using an extra $0.65 worth of power to run the A/C won't add any further demand charges so long as your peak doesn't exceed 5kW.
Now where this gets somewhat nasty. I still have an off-peak tariff for my hot water and pool filter which typically cuts off around some time around 17:30-18:30 and doesn't kick back in until 21:00. Though this Peak Demand doesn't just apply to my Demand tariff, but total consumption including the off-peak. Surprise, pool filter running at 16:00? included. Ok, so I adjusted the pool timer to cut out before 16:00, I also set the electric car to not start charging until after 21:00. Hot water system? Not a lot I can do, but it shouldn't be kicking in before 21:00 and as far as I have seen when checking the pool equipment (lights up when the off-Peak is online) it hasn't been kicking back in. From past usage our peak period seems to be the 20:00-21:00 which will be when my main PC is running, plus the daughter's laptop for homework, and the Mrs. watching TV. However while this is pretty consistent around 1.1-1.3kW, I have seen one day where it was 1.8kW which is a bit suspicious where that extra 1/2 kW might have come from. Possibly it was some cooking with induction, or the bigger fear is that the off-peak tariff could be coming back online prior to 21:00 rarely, where the HWS is kicking back in after being off and warming after some dishes and a shower or two happens before 21:00. The power company could be "sneaky" and ensuring that the off-peak tariffs manage to get turned back on early one or two days a month, as this would end up padding peak demand figures for a lot of residents for the entire month. This isn't helped by the fact that while my energy provider does provide usage figures online, it only provides hourly intervals, not half-hourly intervals so I have no visibility to review or anticipate charges that are based on half-hourly usage. My bill also does not state which day & interval they used for the peak demand charge.
What is dumb about this tariff is that it can be gamed, and doesn't really accomplish what it claims to accomplish. If you have guests over and want to run the A/C for 30 minutes to cool down a room, then you're going to use 2.5kWh of energy depending for that 5kW system, but if you turn on the AC on the hour/half-hour, it will count entirely to a single interval, hitting you for 5kW peak load. Instead, if you wait for a 15/45 min mark, then the load splits across 2 intervals, adding only 2.5kW to each interval. Same load, different potential billing impact without "spreading out the load." at all. Ideally you should aim to avoid usage during your typical peak interval, but this trick can help prevent a one-off usage forming a new peak interval which impact will be multiplied across the entire month.
I suspect the power companies really want everyone on a Time of Use tariff where each time interval has a variable price per kW so they can discount prices during quiet times and charge everyone 3x or more during peak hours, but that's an extremely bitter pill for consumers. When it comes to electricity, the consumers end up paying repeatedly for the lack of preparedness of the energy providers.
Overall, with the changes we have made to our scheduling, or electricity costs *should* be lower than what we were paying on the old fixed tariffs, but I have to wait until next month's bill to confirm that since this month's peak usage will be skewed from before I could alter the car charging and pool filter timing. I can't say I'm optimistic though, the break-even peak demand figure I calculated based on previous bills was 2.45kW. We'll save if our peak is 1.3kW or even this unexplained 1.8kW, but not a huge buffer when the last bill reported a peak of 3.67kW, and this next one will likely be over 3kW as well.
Thursday, October 23, 2025
On Electricity: Demand Tariffs are Dumb
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
The real cost of Afterpay
BNPL services are popular. Beyond fueling instant gratification through consumption, there are many out there that may not really understand the potential cost of using services like Afterpay. If you're able to reliably make your payments then there is little downside to using Afterpay versus a credit card. However, missing a payment, or falling into a pattern where you are missing payments, Afterpay gets considerably more expensive than credit cards.
Late Fees
The way Afterpay markets late fees seems reasonable on the surface. $10 fee when a payment is late to a maximum of 25% the purchase price or $69, whichever is less. People will compare that to an interest rate on a credit card of anywhere from 24% to 30% and it looks "reasonable". However, there are a few significant differences. Lets use a basic example spending $600 with Afterpay vs $600 with a credit card.
With an Afterpay purchase you pay 4 payments of 25%, the first at purchase and the remainder every 2 weeks. So on day one Afterpay will attempt to deduct $150, leaving you owing $450. After 2 weeks, another $150, and two more $150 at 4 weeks, and 6 weeks. Simple. Now, what happens when we miss a payment? For this example let's assume we miss the last payment at 6 weeks. Aside from possible dishonour fees from our nominated payment account, we are charged $10 from Afterpay. Afterpay will charge us $10 up to a maximum of $69 or 25% of the purchase price, whichever is less. In this case a maximum penalty of $69 as the purchase price was $600. Note that the 25% cap is on the purchase price, not the outstanding balance. We have paid back $450 so we only owe $150 at that point. Say we notice the mistake early, have the remaining $150 available and pay the balance off. The total cost was $160 with the late fee. If we took longer to get the balance, $10 would be charged each week until the cap of $69 was reached.
Now if we look at the same scenario with a credit card, the entire purchase price would be taken on credit with an interest free period of typically up to 44 days. Each month there is a cut-off date for the due payment, so the "up to" 44 days applies from the date of purchase to the next payment cut-off date. From there a statement for the current balance is calculated and you have around 14-20 days to pay before you are charged interest. Of course you can make payments against a credit card at any time. So, if we assume you missed your credit card payment and had a 25% p.a. interest rate on the card, how much would it cost you paying it one day late? Worst case, at 45 days from purchase:
25% / 365 * 45 * $600 = $18.49.
Now that looks worse, but it's not a fair comparison. In the Afterpay case we paid off $450 of the balance and missed the last payment, so let's assume we could pay off $450 of the balance by the CC due date:
25% / 365 * 45 * $150 = $4.62
Afterpay charged us $10, on a credit card in similar circumstances it would have been less than half as expensive of a penalty.
Penalties are applied per purchase
The above example was for a single $600 purchase. Afterpay's target audience is for people making multiple impulse purchases. If we change the scenario into 6 purchases of $100 each, failure to make payments for the one or more of the 6 final payments would end up costing $10 for *each* purchase that was not paid for. Chances are with the smaller payments of $25 at least one or two might have been paid off, but each purchase of $100 would potentially attract a cap of $25 in late fees and it would just take 3 weeks to reach that cap at $10/week. If it was all 6 purchases that is $150 in late fees. The $69 cap applies to individual purchases, not the balance of purchases.
Again, for a credit card the penalty for not paying off the balance at the end of the month is based on the outstanding balance at the end of the month, not the purchase price. It is worth noting that credit cards used to be far less fair where not paying the balance off at the end of the month they applied the full interest of the starting balance, not the balance remaining,
Capped percentage late fees vs. p.a. interest rates
Afterpay is structured in a way that penalty fees are capped out quite quickly, in most cases within 3-4 weeks after a payment is missed. While the cap is around 25% of the purchase price, this is in no way comparable to a 25% p.a. (per annum) interest rate. When you have a 25% penalty being reached in 4 weeks, that is equivalent to a 325% p.a. interest rate. When the rate is charged at $10/week even on smaller, individual purchases, that comparison interest rate is even higher.
The threat of pay it or lose it
One of the strongest incentives that BNPL providers like Afterpay use on consumers is the threat of cutting off your access to their credit if you miss payments. While this might seem like a good thing to keep you from overspending, this leads to consumers prioritizing the Afterpay payments over other debts or bills to keep that purchasing power lifeline open. Afterpay can downplay the amount of "debt" and arrears (people behind on payment) with their shareholders because the platform is leveraged to get borrowers to extend their outstanding balances on credit cards, bills, tuition, etc. before missing Afterpay payments.
No benefits offered compared to credit card purchases
Many credit cards offer rewards points or cash-back offers when making purchases with them. You are also free to negotiate with vendors for a good deal on goods. The entire point of BNPL is to lessen the sticker shock of a purchase. Many vendors will not haggle on price when accepting a purchase on BNPL given the fees they pay to the platform are considerably higher than credit card gateway fees.
Takeaway
Ultimately the tool isn't evil, but it can be used and abused, plus as a business it is expected to grow and make money. Many emerging "disruptors" aim to gain popularity rapidly by burning through investment money without a lot of thought or transparency into how such businesses can transition into profitability. The worst thing that a consumer considering using BNPL is to ever get into a situation where they become dependent on it. This belongs right alongside services like MyPayNow & WageTap which will release daily amounts based on your pay cheque so you don't have to wait until pay day. Of course the sum of your daily pay outs won't come close to your normal fortnightly pay, and you can bet there are penalties and fees if it turns out you had unpaid leave while on their platform. The real scary thing is that even Australian Banks are getting in on this such as Commonwealth Bank AdvancePay... I mean seriously, regulators? Hello??
Forms of "pay day lending" have been offered in the past and continually get reinvented and re-imaged as a means of "helping" less fortunate people that don't have access to traditional credit or sufficient cashflow to cover legitimate one-off costs. Unfortunately, these businesses almost always devolve into something that exploits the most vulnerable.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Why we should consider Universal Basic Income
I'll admit, the first time I heard about UBI I was skeptical. Pay everyone for doing nothing. However, as I read into it, the concept makes a lot of sense and if there is anything that this pandemic should have taught us, having a UBI in place would have made things a whole lot simpler to manage.
A universal basic income is a simple concept. Every citizen gets paid a base salary from the government. In Australia this would be somewhere around $1500 a month. This would be deposited to your nominated bank account in installments every week, fortnight or month. No strings attached. If you work, you keep receiving this UBI and pay income tax on your salary. You do not pay tax on the UBI, even if you earn $1m a year. (Though people could opt to waive or suspend their UBI entitlement.)
The UBI replaces all forms of social assistance including Newstart/Welfare, pensions, disability pensions, etc. The UBI also replaces the tax free threshold, the $18,200 or so from your income that isn't taxed while you are working.
A big problem with welfare systems is trying to ween people off social assistance. Welfare payments are often means tested so that once you are earning income, your payments are reduced, and eventually suspended all together. The issue with these models is that they provide a disincentive to finding work. Many entry level jobs offer only meager pay, and people on welfare will weight the inconvenience and cost of working against losing their payments. Why bother working 8+ hours a day plus travel time to earn maybe a few dollars more than you'd make sitting at home? It's a selfish question, but a fair one. The work is often not guaranteed, being casual or part-time, and getting back onto welfare payments is an extra hassle with possible wait times before payments resume.
With a UBI, this disincentive is removed. Every after-tax dollar you earn from work, whatever work, is yours. You don't lose your UBI, so there is no disincentive to go out and find extra work. People can decide to sit at home on a free $1500/mo. for whatever lifestyle that affords them, but going out and working a few extra hours or building up a career to improve that lifestyle does not cost them anything, or risk losing anything by doing it.
A UBI replaces the tax-free threshold that people claim when doing their taxes. This means that you will be paying tax on every dollar you earn. The net result for tax payers is nil because the UBI serves as their tax free threshold paid forward by the government through the year. Bracketed tax systems remain largely unaffected, just the tax free threshold is reduced to $0.
To handle special cases such as pensions, and disability payments, the UBI can be tiered to accommodate different levels of payments to handle different scenarios. Short term emergency situations can also be managed this way such as assisting people with pandemics or localized disasters. Rather than having to set up entirely new systems to help compensate people affected by disasters or loss of work, the UBI is a network that can already facilitate this immediately.
One question about adopting a UBI is how will it be funded? Well, the lion's share of the UBI for most people will be covered by the removal of the tax free threshold. For the normal working population the UBI effectively costs nothing because it's merely paying forward their tax free threshold. For the social benefit and pension cases, the government reallocates these tax funds into the UBI program. A significant boost can be gained by streamlining the administration of these services as for instance all of the various categories of social assistance, the administration and enforcement of their means tests, everything, simply goes away.
In 2019 we spent nearly $200 billion on social welfare. Of the 25 million population, approximately 5 million are under the age of 18. A UBI of $1,500 a month would cost $360 billion across the adult population. If we assume that only 1/2 of the 20 million adults in Australia are earning at least $18,200, that is ~$38.6 billion in tax free thresholds. By those very basic numbers there is a shortfall, but that is a really rough look at the population to see how many Australian residents would qualify and the tax revenue from the tax free threshold.
If anything, it's worth a closer look.
How a UBI Works
A universal basic income is a simple concept. Every citizen gets paid a base salary from the government. In Australia this would be somewhere around $1500 a month. This would be deposited to your nominated bank account in installments every week, fortnight or month. No strings attached. If you work, you keep receiving this UBI and pay income tax on your salary. You do not pay tax on the UBI, even if you earn $1m a year. (Though people could opt to waive or suspend their UBI entitlement.)
The UBI replaces all forms of social assistance including Newstart/Welfare, pensions, disability pensions, etc. The UBI also replaces the tax free threshold, the $18,200 or so from your income that isn't taxed while you are working.
Replacing Newstart / Welfare
A big problem with welfare systems is trying to ween people off social assistance. Welfare payments are often means tested so that once you are earning income, your payments are reduced, and eventually suspended all together. The issue with these models is that they provide a disincentive to finding work. Many entry level jobs offer only meager pay, and people on welfare will weight the inconvenience and cost of working against losing their payments. Why bother working 8+ hours a day plus travel time to earn maybe a few dollars more than you'd make sitting at home? It's a selfish question, but a fair one. The work is often not guaranteed, being casual or part-time, and getting back onto welfare payments is an extra hassle with possible wait times before payments resume.
With a UBI, this disincentive is removed. Every after-tax dollar you earn from work, whatever work, is yours. You don't lose your UBI, so there is no disincentive to go out and find extra work. People can decide to sit at home on a free $1500/mo. for whatever lifestyle that affords them, but going out and working a few extra hours or building up a career to improve that lifestyle does not cost them anything, or risk losing anything by doing it.
Taxation Changes
A UBI replaces the tax-free threshold that people claim when doing their taxes. This means that you will be paying tax on every dollar you earn. The net result for tax payers is nil because the UBI serves as their tax free threshold paid forward by the government through the year. Bracketed tax systems remain largely unaffected, just the tax free threshold is reduced to $0.
Tiered UBI
To handle special cases such as pensions, and disability payments, the UBI can be tiered to accommodate different levels of payments to handle different scenarios. Short term emergency situations can also be managed this way such as assisting people with pandemics or localized disasters. Rather than having to set up entirely new systems to help compensate people affected by disasters or loss of work, the UBI is a network that can already facilitate this immediately.
Funding a UBI
One question about adopting a UBI is how will it be funded? Well, the lion's share of the UBI for most people will be covered by the removal of the tax free threshold. For the normal working population the UBI effectively costs nothing because it's merely paying forward their tax free threshold. For the social benefit and pension cases, the government reallocates these tax funds into the UBI program. A significant boost can be gained by streamlining the administration of these services as for instance all of the various categories of social assistance, the administration and enforcement of their means tests, everything, simply goes away.
In 2019 we spent nearly $200 billion on social welfare. Of the 25 million population, approximately 5 million are under the age of 18. A UBI of $1,500 a month would cost $360 billion across the adult population. If we assume that only 1/2 of the 20 million adults in Australia are earning at least $18,200, that is ~$38.6 billion in tax free thresholds. By those very basic numbers there is a shortfall, but that is a really rough look at the population to see how many Australian residents would qualify and the tax revenue from the tax free threshold.
If anything, it's worth a closer look.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Beating the Cold, the Flu, and the Coronavirus
Disclaimer: This is not medical advice. This is my personal approach to handling illnesses that we commonly face as someone that does not have any serious health complications. A novel virus like SARS can infect anyone, and it can be potentially life threatening to anyone. If you have conditions like hypertension, high blood pressure, asthma, and other risk factors that the medical community have identified and are concerned that you may have been exposed to SARS/COVID-19/Coronavirus then seek medical advice and follow their directions.
Proper hygiene and protective measures will only go so far. Many people get exposed to and infected by Cold and Flu viruses many times in their lives, and many will be exposed to this new SARS strain. This virus will potentially harm you unless you're prepared to unlearn some of the assumptions we've developed over the years with Colds in particular.
The first important thing is that while this is a virus from the common Cold strains, it is *not* a common Cold. It will start out feeling like a Cold, but it can easily develop into something more closely resembling a severe Flu. Many people do not really know the difference between a Cold and a Flu. Often you hear people claim they "came down the with flu over the weekend". They didn't have a Flu, they most likely had a Cold, or at worst, a mild Flu. The Flu will most certainly keep you in bed. You will ache. You will have chills. You will have a significant fever. You will have a headache. You will have a cough that makes your chest hurt and have you checking your hand/tissue expecting to find blood.
The second important thing is that you will need to learn to listen to your body again. We have evolved into a society where illness is an inconvenience. Catch a cold? Take some decongestants for the stuffed up feeling, a painkiller for the headache, and some lozenges / syrup for the cough and "Soldier On". When it comes to viral infections, TIME is critical. A virus infects and reproduces through your body at a given speed. Your immune system can respond and fight it at a given speed. When a virus is relatively mild, it doesn't matter as much if you let it get a foothold if you can treat your symptoms and carry on with your day. You'll feel relatively miserable for a few days, but eventually your immune system will get the upper hand. However, when you are dealing with a virus that can pack a significantly harder punch, treating it like a mild cold can be fatal. Staying up and about, suppressing your immune response (which is what makes these diseases uncomfortable) is giving the virus a head start and crippling your immune response. Yes, getting a viral infection is uncomfortable, but that is your immune system going to war. To stand the best chance of surviving the battle, Stay out of the way!
Dealing with viral infections is about learning to give your body the best fighting chance. This means listening closely to what your body wants, and letting it fight without you getting in the way.
#1. Act as soon as you feel ill. If you wake up one morning and feel "off". Call in sick and stay home. If you're at work and feel chills after lunch, go home immediately. TIME is critical to get on top of bugs, whether a common Cold, Flu, or one of these new Coronavirus strains. "Healthy" people that are suffering due to this new strain are likely confusing it for a Cold, carrying on about their day coping with the symptoms. All the while this virus is getting a head start in the battle, and once entrenched, the immune system will be on the back foot trying to regain control. The war moves into areas of your body that would best do without the chemical warfare. Stop the virus at the beaches, not the central business district.
#2. Bed rest. Don't try and get things done. Don't go into work or even try working from home or doing housework. Get into something comfortable, grab a big pitcher of water and a glass to keep near the bed, and stay in bed! Sleep as much as you can. Take short breaks to read or watch a bit of a movie, but stay as comfortable as you can and movement to a minimum.
#3. Stay hydrated. Water, and only water. NO sugar. If you feel thirsty, drink. Keep water handy so you don't have to get up and move around. The only time I get up is when I have to pee. Your immune system will be working hard to isolate, kill, and dispose of the virus and the byproducts of the infection and chemical warfare. Much of that
#4. Cope with the symptoms. Don't medicate to make yourself comfortable. Your body is using histamines and fever for a purpose. Keep tabs on your fever level to ensure it doesn't get too high too long, but minimize the use of "relief" medication. These are a setback for your immune system. Use only enough to allow you to sleep.
#5. Do what your body tells you. If it says "I'm cold", bundle up, maybe add a hot water bottle. If it says "I'm hot", throw the covers off. If 30 minutes later it says "I'm cold again", bundle up. If you feel hungry, eat, if not, don't force yourself. Think about what you want to eat if you're hungry, your stomach will hint you at a comfort food. (For me, it's typically apples) If your body thinks lying out in the warm sun would feel good... do it.
#6. If your alone, call someone to help. If you're coping with a bug and you're hungry but don't have something "comforting" in the house to eat, call someone and ask them to bring it. Whether it's warm soup, bread, or apples. Don't try and head to the shops yourself as it will be a setback in your fight. (And a risk to other people) If you HAVE to go out for yourself, dress warm, wear a face mask to protect others, and only stay out as long as absolutely necessary, then get home and back to bed.
#7. Keep tabs on your condition. Especially fever and whether you can eat if it drags on for several days. Let people know you are at home sick if you are alone, and be ready to make the call for help if the fever is staying high and does not respond to paracetamol, or you cannot keep small amounts of food down after 2-3 days. The danger zone with fevers is where the fever is already high and your body is still feeling cold even when bundled up.
These are the rules I follow religiously when it comes to getting sick. The moment I feel like I am coming down with something, I head directly to bed with a big jug of water. I get up only to pee. If I'm feeling ok, I might sit up to read or watch something, but no more than half an hour at a time, I focus most of my time on sleeping, letting my immune system do it's thing, and listening to what my body needs.
Stay safe, stay healthy, and stay home.
Proper hygiene and protective measures will only go so far. Many people get exposed to and infected by Cold and Flu viruses many times in their lives, and many will be exposed to this new SARS strain. This virus will potentially harm you unless you're prepared to unlearn some of the assumptions we've developed over the years with Colds in particular.
The first important thing is that while this is a virus from the common Cold strains, it is *not* a common Cold. It will start out feeling like a Cold, but it can easily develop into something more closely resembling a severe Flu. Many people do not really know the difference between a Cold and a Flu. Often you hear people claim they "came down the with flu over the weekend". They didn't have a Flu, they most likely had a Cold, or at worst, a mild Flu. The Flu will most certainly keep you in bed. You will ache. You will have chills. You will have a significant fever. You will have a headache. You will have a cough that makes your chest hurt and have you checking your hand/tissue expecting to find blood.
The second important thing is that you will need to learn to listen to your body again. We have evolved into a society where illness is an inconvenience. Catch a cold? Take some decongestants for the stuffed up feeling, a painkiller for the headache, and some lozenges / syrup for the cough and "Soldier On". When it comes to viral infections, TIME is critical. A virus infects and reproduces through your body at a given speed. Your immune system can respond and fight it at a given speed. When a virus is relatively mild, it doesn't matter as much if you let it get a foothold if you can treat your symptoms and carry on with your day. You'll feel relatively miserable for a few days, but eventually your immune system will get the upper hand. However, when you are dealing with a virus that can pack a significantly harder punch, treating it like a mild cold can be fatal. Staying up and about, suppressing your immune response (which is what makes these diseases uncomfortable) is giving the virus a head start and crippling your immune response. Yes, getting a viral infection is uncomfortable, but that is your immune system going to war. To stand the best chance of surviving the battle, Stay out of the way!
Dealing with viral infections is about learning to give your body the best fighting chance. This means listening closely to what your body wants, and letting it fight without you getting in the way.
#1. Act as soon as you feel ill. If you wake up one morning and feel "off". Call in sick and stay home. If you're at work and feel chills after lunch, go home immediately. TIME is critical to get on top of bugs, whether a common Cold, Flu, or one of these new Coronavirus strains. "Healthy" people that are suffering due to this new strain are likely confusing it for a Cold, carrying on about their day coping with the symptoms. All the while this virus is getting a head start in the battle, and once entrenched, the immune system will be on the back foot trying to regain control. The war moves into areas of your body that would best do without the chemical warfare. Stop the virus at the beaches, not the central business district.
#2. Bed rest. Don't try and get things done. Don't go into work or even try working from home or doing housework. Get into something comfortable, grab a big pitcher of water and a glass to keep near the bed, and stay in bed! Sleep as much as you can. Take short breaks to read or watch a bit of a movie, but stay as comfortable as you can and movement to a minimum.
#3. Stay hydrated. Water, and only water. NO sugar. If you feel thirsty, drink. Keep water handy so you don't have to get up and move around. The only time I get up is when I have to pee. Your immune system will be working hard to isolate, kill, and dispose of the virus and the byproducts of the infection and chemical warfare. Much of that
#4. Cope with the symptoms. Don't medicate to make yourself comfortable. Your body is using histamines and fever for a purpose. Keep tabs on your fever level to ensure it doesn't get too high too long, but minimize the use of "relief" medication. These are a setback for your immune system. Use only enough to allow you to sleep.
#5. Do what your body tells you. If it says "I'm cold", bundle up, maybe add a hot water bottle. If it says "I'm hot", throw the covers off. If 30 minutes later it says "I'm cold again", bundle up. If you feel hungry, eat, if not, don't force yourself. Think about what you want to eat if you're hungry, your stomach will hint you at a comfort food. (For me, it's typically apples) If your body thinks lying out in the warm sun would feel good... do it.
#6. If your alone, call someone to help. If you're coping with a bug and you're hungry but don't have something "comforting" in the house to eat, call someone and ask them to bring it. Whether it's warm soup, bread, or apples. Don't try and head to the shops yourself as it will be a setback in your fight. (And a risk to other people) If you HAVE to go out for yourself, dress warm, wear a face mask to protect others, and only stay out as long as absolutely necessary, then get home and back to bed.
#7. Keep tabs on your condition. Especially fever and whether you can eat if it drags on for several days. Let people know you are at home sick if you are alone, and be ready to make the call for help if the fever is staying high and does not respond to paracetamol, or you cannot keep small amounts of food down after 2-3 days. The danger zone with fevers is where the fever is already high and your body is still feeling cold even when bundled up.
These are the rules I follow religiously when it comes to getting sick. The moment I feel like I am coming down with something, I head directly to bed with a big jug of water. I get up only to pee. If I'm feeling ok, I might sit up to read or watch something, but no more than half an hour at a time, I focus most of my time on sleeping, letting my immune system do it's thing, and listening to what my body needs.
Stay safe, stay healthy, and stay home.
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Coronavirus, lessons that should hopefully be learned.
In 2003 we got a taste of what a new, deadly strain of Coronavirus could do to us. Humans have battled with Coronavirus strains and Rhinovirus strains for as long as we've been a species on Earth. Here was essentially a common Cold virus that carried the punch of a Flu. People feared it greatly. Some people worked towards a cure while others resorted to isolation. Ultimately it was called out early enough to essentially starve out after only a relatively small percentage of the population being exposed to it. Victory was declared and we got on with our lives.
But what did we actually win? Did we find the cure or vaccine for it and protect the bulk of the herd? No. The virus petered out, and so too did the funding and drive towards developing a vaccine. The monster went back into the closet after we turned on the light, and there was no sign of it around.
Since that time we've battled two new Flu strains, another age-old enemy that pops up every year. We study and vaccinate against this beast regularly and it still manages to kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people each and every year. The H5N1 "Bird Flu" happened two years after SARS. We were still on fairly high alert, but this strain largely fizzled out. The H1N1 "Swine Flu" in 2009 was a much bigger deal, but it came while we were still reeling from the GFC. CDC estimates for the 2009 outbreak put the # of deaths at anywhere from 150,000 to 450,000 people.
When it comes to viruses and our ability to fight them, we rely on only one thing, our immune system, and the immune systems of the people around us. (The "Herd Immunity") With the common varieties of Coronavirus, we get sick, but they are largely non-threatening. These viruses have gone through countless mutations over the years and we don't even bother trying to develop vaccines or cures for the common cold. There is simply no justified need for it. A lot of this will have to do with how our bodies produce, maintain, and "record" antibodies for later use.Studies in flu vaccines have shown that in some cases, when we get a vaccine for a particular strain of virus, our bodies can start producing antibodies for other flu strains that weren't part of the vaccination. Vaccines targeting one strain can also have an impact on the immune response to exposure to a different strain. It won't be 100% effective, but it can still help shorten the response and recovery time. This is one reason doctors encourage the use of flu shots even though the few strains chosen out of the possible hundreds out in the wild are little more that a wet finger in the air guess.
Which brings us to COVID-19 / SARS-2. What's changed all that much? Well, like SARS (2003) this virus is a Coronavirus which is highly contagious and knows a few back doors to make itself an unwelcome guest in human hosts. It spreads like a Cold and punches like a Flu. This time around the ground zero was one of the largest cities in China during the middle of the Northern Flu season in the lead up to Chinese New Years where much of the population travels across the country and overseas family members fly home. SARS began in a more rural setting at the start of the Northern winter.
The biggest mistake I believe we made with SARS was abandoning the vaccine. I would love to see a study done on COVID-19's effect on past SARS survivors, those people that contracted SARS and developed antibodies. I would not be at all surprised if it found that SARS survivors, even though antibodies would likely be dormant by now, had a much improved response to the SARS-2 virus infection. Had we followed through and developed a SARS vaccine, or better controlled the spread of the disease to allow a larger segment of our population to safely develop antibodies, would this new variant have torn through the population with such devastating effect?
The lessons I believe we need to learn from this, and past virus outbreaks would be:
- The only thing that protects us is our immune system. Starving a virus out back into the closet is a false victory. Either we need to follow through with a vaccine or ensure that a good percentage of the world population has a chance to develop antibodies. China may serve as an example that a virus can be successfully starved, but it will have to be forever vigilant for new outbreaks. When visitors start returning and risk bringing the virus back into the country, aftershocks of lock-downs will undoubtedly occur to contain it especially if the general population cannot be vaccinated.
- Worldwide we have become complacent with health care. Beds per 1000 people have been steadily dropping, and while on average they may seem not that alarming, the figures for some of our more populous cities are extremely inadequate. Viral outbreaks in city centres will burn like wildfires, overwhelming local hospitals. You cannot blame medical advisors talking up the risks and worst case scenarios to try and direct the fear into support to claw back spending cuts they have faced through the "good years".
- Spare a thought for your local businesses that, for no fault of their own, are being starved of business from being abandoned by customers that have absolutely nothing to fear from them. When the panic passes and life returns back to a relative normal, it would be a shame to see some of your past favorite eateries and such boarded up.
and finally...
- We need to resist the urge to try and track the spread of a virus through mediums like social media. The fear and panic caused by unverified sources leads people to act irrationally and not trust the people that have been entrusted to protect them. Many people who should not have need to fear this virus end up acting in a manner that increases the risks not only to themselves, but others around them. The premature findings, the inaccurate conclusions & opinions derived from them, and the downright dangerous "fake news" can be as convincing and prominently placed on the Internet as the advice from official voices. People, even official sources of information draw up all kinds of stupid conclusions, such as comparing estimated projections for flu cases against case figures for this new virus, citing anywhere from 3% to 5%+ mortality rate and then projecting that across entire populations. It is complete fear-mongering hogs-wallow. To project across a population you need to take an unaffected sample and put them in an environment presenting a typical exposure to the virus. From that there will be people that get sick, and some that don't. Some of the sick will need medical attention, others won't. Some that need medical attention may even die. From those figures you can extrapolate out to a population for a given age group. Figures for SARS-2 exposure are biased heavily due to a lack of reliable testing. The majority of initial cases were only confirmed once they were essentially at a stage that was requiring hospitalization. The number of cases out there that are walking around with what will pass with little more than an itchy throat is a complete unknown. If you were to project the estimated hospitalizations for H1N1-2009 against deaths to be more in-line with the case counts of COVID-19, the mortality rate for H1N1 would have been ~15%.
Getting information out to people is a good thing, but like medicine, too much is usually a very effective poison. Elements of the public have gone "12 Monkeys" over the spread of this Coronavirus. Many have watched convincing movies like "Outbreak" or "Contagion". Others have played games like "Plague Inc." and know releasing a benign, but contagious virus out of China then waiting to ramp up the lethal mutations is a grimly satisfying way to "win" the game by eradicating the Human population. They form parallels with what they see on "news" sites which are little more these days than accumulators of Tweets. People will scream at the idea of comparing COVID-19 with a flu, it's so much worse, cities don't get shut down for the flu. Take the last H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The difference between 2009 and today (2020) is that we weren't watching the spread anywhere nearly as closely, nor what countries were specifically trying to do to contain it. H1N1-2009 killed anywhere from 150,000 to 450,000 people. COVID-2019 has killed 7000 in 3 months. Some might highlight the extensive efforts countries like China have undertaken to contain the virus, and how much higher the death toll might have been if left to run it's course. H1N1 killed so many more people even *with* a vaccine eventually available. Hindsight will judge how effective measures like those used in China were in minimizing, or maximizing the damage of this virus. On the one hand they shone a light on the virus early and looked to restrict travel. On the other hand they locked down cities with inadequate local medical care and prevented patients, affected by the virus or otherwise, to be transferred to other cities that had capacity to care for them. The overloaded hospitals meant many people were left with no option other than to queue up at hospitals each day, cross-exposing each other, then bringing the virus home to their extended families. Patients with unrelated medical issues needing attention get caught in the queues, and without treatment they die. Pictures of those deaths in the hallways of hospitals then are automatically counted against the virus by popular opinion, fueling the panic.
Maybe we scare this virus back into the closet, maybe we develop a vaccine. At some point life will start returning to a relative normal, but I can guarantee we will face another threat from a virus down the road. Hopefully we can learn something from this incident to not allow ourselves to get complacent with how we face a threat, and take the opportunity to be better prepared to face it without resorting to such drastic and questionable actions due to panic.
But what did we actually win? Did we find the cure or vaccine for it and protect the bulk of the herd? No. The virus petered out, and so too did the funding and drive towards developing a vaccine. The monster went back into the closet after we turned on the light, and there was no sign of it around.
Since that time we've battled two new Flu strains, another age-old enemy that pops up every year. We study and vaccinate against this beast regularly and it still manages to kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people each and every year. The H5N1 "Bird Flu" happened two years after SARS. We were still on fairly high alert, but this strain largely fizzled out. The H1N1 "Swine Flu" in 2009 was a much bigger deal, but it came while we were still reeling from the GFC. CDC estimates for the 2009 outbreak put the # of deaths at anywhere from 150,000 to 450,000 people.
When it comes to viruses and our ability to fight them, we rely on only one thing, our immune system, and the immune systems of the people around us. (The "Herd Immunity") With the common varieties of Coronavirus, we get sick, but they are largely non-threatening. These viruses have gone through countless mutations over the years and we don't even bother trying to develop vaccines or cures for the common cold. There is simply no justified need for it. A lot of this will have to do with how our bodies produce, maintain, and "record" antibodies for later use.Studies in flu vaccines have shown that in some cases, when we get a vaccine for a particular strain of virus, our bodies can start producing antibodies for other flu strains that weren't part of the vaccination. Vaccines targeting one strain can also have an impact on the immune response to exposure to a different strain. It won't be 100% effective, but it can still help shorten the response and recovery time. This is one reason doctors encourage the use of flu shots even though the few strains chosen out of the possible hundreds out in the wild are little more that a wet finger in the air guess.
Which brings us to COVID-19 / SARS-2. What's changed all that much? Well, like SARS (2003) this virus is a Coronavirus which is highly contagious and knows a few back doors to make itself an unwelcome guest in human hosts. It spreads like a Cold and punches like a Flu. This time around the ground zero was one of the largest cities in China during the middle of the Northern Flu season in the lead up to Chinese New Years where much of the population travels across the country and overseas family members fly home. SARS began in a more rural setting at the start of the Northern winter.
The biggest mistake I believe we made with SARS was abandoning the vaccine. I would love to see a study done on COVID-19's effect on past SARS survivors, those people that contracted SARS and developed antibodies. I would not be at all surprised if it found that SARS survivors, even though antibodies would likely be dormant by now, had a much improved response to the SARS-2 virus infection. Had we followed through and developed a SARS vaccine, or better controlled the spread of the disease to allow a larger segment of our population to safely develop antibodies, would this new variant have torn through the population with such devastating effect?
The lessons I believe we need to learn from this, and past virus outbreaks would be:
- The only thing that protects us is our immune system. Starving a virus out back into the closet is a false victory. Either we need to follow through with a vaccine or ensure that a good percentage of the world population has a chance to develop antibodies. China may serve as an example that a virus can be successfully starved, but it will have to be forever vigilant for new outbreaks. When visitors start returning and risk bringing the virus back into the country, aftershocks of lock-downs will undoubtedly occur to contain it especially if the general population cannot be vaccinated.
- Worldwide we have become complacent with health care. Beds per 1000 people have been steadily dropping, and while on average they may seem not that alarming, the figures for some of our more populous cities are extremely inadequate. Viral outbreaks in city centres will burn like wildfires, overwhelming local hospitals. You cannot blame medical advisors talking up the risks and worst case scenarios to try and direct the fear into support to claw back spending cuts they have faced through the "good years".
- Spare a thought for your local businesses that, for no fault of their own, are being starved of business from being abandoned by customers that have absolutely nothing to fear from them. When the panic passes and life returns back to a relative normal, it would be a shame to see some of your past favorite eateries and such boarded up.
and finally...
- We need to resist the urge to try and track the spread of a virus through mediums like social media. The fear and panic caused by unverified sources leads people to act irrationally and not trust the people that have been entrusted to protect them. Many people who should not have need to fear this virus end up acting in a manner that increases the risks not only to themselves, but others around them. The premature findings, the inaccurate conclusions & opinions derived from them, and the downright dangerous "fake news" can be as convincing and prominently placed on the Internet as the advice from official voices. People, even official sources of information draw up all kinds of stupid conclusions, such as comparing estimated projections for flu cases against case figures for this new virus, citing anywhere from 3% to 5%+ mortality rate and then projecting that across entire populations. It is complete fear-mongering hogs-wallow. To project across a population you need to take an unaffected sample and put them in an environment presenting a typical exposure to the virus. From that there will be people that get sick, and some that don't. Some of the sick will need medical attention, others won't. Some that need medical attention may even die. From those figures you can extrapolate out to a population for a given age group. Figures for SARS-2 exposure are biased heavily due to a lack of reliable testing. The majority of initial cases were only confirmed once they were essentially at a stage that was requiring hospitalization. The number of cases out there that are walking around with what will pass with little more than an itchy throat is a complete unknown. If you were to project the estimated hospitalizations for H1N1-2009 against deaths to be more in-line with the case counts of COVID-19, the mortality rate for H1N1 would have been ~15%.
Getting information out to people is a good thing, but like medicine, too much is usually a very effective poison. Elements of the public have gone "12 Monkeys" over the spread of this Coronavirus. Many have watched convincing movies like "Outbreak" or "Contagion". Others have played games like "Plague Inc." and know releasing a benign, but contagious virus out of China then waiting to ramp up the lethal mutations is a grimly satisfying way to "win" the game by eradicating the Human population. They form parallels with what they see on "news" sites which are little more these days than accumulators of Tweets. People will scream at the idea of comparing COVID-19 with a flu, it's so much worse, cities don't get shut down for the flu. Take the last H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The difference between 2009 and today (2020) is that we weren't watching the spread anywhere nearly as closely, nor what countries were specifically trying to do to contain it. H1N1-2009 killed anywhere from 150,000 to 450,000 people. COVID-2019 has killed 7000 in 3 months. Some might highlight the extensive efforts countries like China have undertaken to contain the virus, and how much higher the death toll might have been if left to run it's course. H1N1 killed so many more people even *with* a vaccine eventually available. Hindsight will judge how effective measures like those used in China were in minimizing, or maximizing the damage of this virus. On the one hand they shone a light on the virus early and looked to restrict travel. On the other hand they locked down cities with inadequate local medical care and prevented patients, affected by the virus or otherwise, to be transferred to other cities that had capacity to care for them. The overloaded hospitals meant many people were left with no option other than to queue up at hospitals each day, cross-exposing each other, then bringing the virus home to their extended families. Patients with unrelated medical issues needing attention get caught in the queues, and without treatment they die. Pictures of those deaths in the hallways of hospitals then are automatically counted against the virus by popular opinion, fueling the panic.
Maybe we scare this virus back into the closet, maybe we develop a vaccine. At some point life will start returning to a relative normal, but I can guarantee we will face another threat from a virus down the road. Hopefully we can learn something from this incident to not allow ourselves to get complacent with how we face a threat, and take the opportunity to be better prepared to face it without resorting to such drastic and questionable actions due to panic.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Vending Machine Ponzi Schemes
Recently I'd come across a discussion about a certain brand using vending machines. I'd seen a few of these machines around Brisbane and the Gold Coast, along with other novelty machines, but I've never seen anyone actually use any of them. The discussion was around a scheme offered to "investors" for a 100% passive income stream. The scheme was simple: Front up $25,000 for the machine, and they provide a guaranteed flat 12% per annum return. The company takes care of maintenance, stocking, etc. 12% p.a. from a machine that I have never seen anyone actually use after expenses? How?
Schemes like this amount to a fairly simple variant of a Ponzi. By definition a Ponzi scheme takes your investment funds and guarantees a return. It pays that return regularly using the money you initially invested, and money invested by the people that follow. Many Ponzi schemes start off as a legitimate investment scheme that want to attract enough capital to achieve an optimistic scenario that will actually have the potential to earn more than the incentive. They implode when that scenario does not materialize and the scheme starves itself of capital. The people that got in early essentially got most of their money back, or possibly a profit from the scheme, provided they didn't reinvest those earnings back in the scheme. The people that got in late will get virtually nothing.
So, how does a scheme like this potentially work? First we look at the investment amount: $25,000 per machine. Now, there is absolutely no way these machines cost $25,000. The real figure for the machine is probably South of $2,500, but we'll use $2,500 as an example. The company gets investors to invest $25,000 for each machine, guaranteeing a 12% p.a. return, or $250/mo. Their cost for the machine is $2,500, so they now have $22,500 per machine in the bank. Now, starting off there will be people interested, but skeptical. They might only get 10 initial investors. They need to combat the skepticism so they pay their investors back their $250/mo. like clockwork. Investors can sign up for a 2 year or 5 year investment agreement. After 2 years they will have been paid back $6,000, after 5 years, $15,000. What most don't realize is that this money is just coming back from the $25,000 that they originally invested. Still, on paper it looks like the scheme is delivering exactly what the investors signed up for. Positive reviews and testimonials start flowing in and skepticism in the scheme is dispelled.
At the end of their investment term, the scheme is quite careful to indicate that they will have that $6/15k plus their initial investment available to "reinvest". They want to keep the initial $25,000 in the scheme towards new, additional machines. Some of the early investors may request a buy-out to get back all or most of their initial $25,000 and provided the scheme hasn't gotten sloppy yet, it will reluctantly oblige to pay these people out. At least some of these people are testing the waters and when they get their payout, they will reinvest, satisfied the scheme is sound. At minimum it provides absolute confidence that the 12% guaranteed return is potentially real. However, their real goal is to keep what remains of the initial investment in the scheme, and draw back in that payout, plus more capital from the original investors.
The purpose of the scheme is to build up market share, to saturate the new market with their brand before competitors. The machines are essentially billboards that are capable of displaying advertisements. Once their machines are everywhere their objective is to be able to negotiate advertising agreements for an additional revenue stream to their product sales. The first question any skeptic has when presented with a scheme that looks too good to be true is: "If the return is so great, why aren't they using their own money?" The answer is pretty simple, they are, but to grow fast they need more capital and why go through the effort to convince a bank (and pay interest/provide collateral) when you can convince the public?
How the scheme implodes: This depends a lot on a number of factors, largely what happens to the net difference between the initial investment and the operating costs. The above example is extremely simple. These machines do require maintenance due to whatever use they actually manage to attract, plus dealing with vandalism and the like. The operators of the scheme will undoubtedly be drawing down a salary, plus there are advertising costs to promote the scheme. Provided investors keep their money invested in the illusion of a 12% return the scheme can be sustained for quite some time while new machines are rolled out. For every $25k, the scheme operators could potentially choose to roll out 2, or maybe even 5 new locations, but they have to watch the cash flow carefully. Their goal is to get to a critical mass to get that new revenue stream, but there is no guarantee that the revenue will materialize. Ultimately they are working against the clock because while investors will be satisfied initially that they are getting their $15000 return after 5 years, they are going to be expecting their $25,000 capital outlay back, and the simple fact is that the scheme does *not* have enough cash to pay very many of these investors out.
Anyone considering a scheme like this should hopefully be quite wary of the possibility of getting their initial investment back at the end of the agreement and not blindsided by the fact that people currently in the scheme are getting their promised 12% payments each month without fail. If there is one thing to think about, it is depreciation. If a machine really cost $25,000, how much would it be worth after 5 years of use? The schemes will claim that the machines are effectively owned by you, where they take care of the maintenance etc. to re-assure you in case anything were to go wrong. When the scheme collapses you may very well find yourself the owner of one or more of these machines, with retail space rent owed, and a machine worth a few hundred dollars in used parts that you need to remove and find storage for. You invested $25,000, got back maybe $15,000 and a proprietary vending machine for a brand that no longer exists.
Is it illegal? The thing about Ponzi's is that they are like a market bubble. They're easy to spot after the fact, and while "Bears" might point fingers at them, authorities typically only act on them once something does go wrong. The perpetrators of these schemes are generally people with very eager ambitions that believe it's better to attempt something and ask forgiveness than forever seek permission. The 12% guarantee is an incentive to attempt to attract enough interest to hit critical mass. The questions you need to ask are:
- Is this criminally motivated or is it merely eager ambition?
- How realistic are their goals and possible revenue? is > 12% really achievable?
- Can I afford to lose some/most of this money to find out for sure?
Schemes like this amount to a fairly simple variant of a Ponzi. By definition a Ponzi scheme takes your investment funds and guarantees a return. It pays that return regularly using the money you initially invested, and money invested by the people that follow. Many Ponzi schemes start off as a legitimate investment scheme that want to attract enough capital to achieve an optimistic scenario that will actually have the potential to earn more than the incentive. They implode when that scenario does not materialize and the scheme starves itself of capital. The people that got in early essentially got most of their money back, or possibly a profit from the scheme, provided they didn't reinvest those earnings back in the scheme. The people that got in late will get virtually nothing.
So, how does a scheme like this potentially work? First we look at the investment amount: $25,000 per machine. Now, there is absolutely no way these machines cost $25,000. The real figure for the machine is probably South of $2,500, but we'll use $2,500 as an example. The company gets investors to invest $25,000 for each machine, guaranteeing a 12% p.a. return, or $250/mo. Their cost for the machine is $2,500, so they now have $22,500 per machine in the bank. Now, starting off there will be people interested, but skeptical. They might only get 10 initial investors. They need to combat the skepticism so they pay their investors back their $250/mo. like clockwork. Investors can sign up for a 2 year or 5 year investment agreement. After 2 years they will have been paid back $6,000, after 5 years, $15,000. What most don't realize is that this money is just coming back from the $25,000 that they originally invested. Still, on paper it looks like the scheme is delivering exactly what the investors signed up for. Positive reviews and testimonials start flowing in and skepticism in the scheme is dispelled.
At the end of their investment term, the scheme is quite careful to indicate that they will have that $6/15k plus their initial investment available to "reinvest". They want to keep the initial $25,000 in the scheme towards new, additional machines. Some of the early investors may request a buy-out to get back all or most of their initial $25,000 and provided the scheme hasn't gotten sloppy yet, it will reluctantly oblige to pay these people out. At least some of these people are testing the waters and when they get their payout, they will reinvest, satisfied the scheme is sound. At minimum it provides absolute confidence that the 12% guaranteed return is potentially real. However, their real goal is to keep what remains of the initial investment in the scheme, and draw back in that payout, plus more capital from the original investors.
The purpose of the scheme is to build up market share, to saturate the new market with their brand before competitors. The machines are essentially billboards that are capable of displaying advertisements. Once their machines are everywhere their objective is to be able to negotiate advertising agreements for an additional revenue stream to their product sales. The first question any skeptic has when presented with a scheme that looks too good to be true is: "If the return is so great, why aren't they using their own money?" The answer is pretty simple, they are, but to grow fast they need more capital and why go through the effort to convince a bank (and pay interest/provide collateral) when you can convince the public?
How the scheme implodes: This depends a lot on a number of factors, largely what happens to the net difference between the initial investment and the operating costs. The above example is extremely simple. These machines do require maintenance due to whatever use they actually manage to attract, plus dealing with vandalism and the like. The operators of the scheme will undoubtedly be drawing down a salary, plus there are advertising costs to promote the scheme. Provided investors keep their money invested in the illusion of a 12% return the scheme can be sustained for quite some time while new machines are rolled out. For every $25k, the scheme operators could potentially choose to roll out 2, or maybe even 5 new locations, but they have to watch the cash flow carefully. Their goal is to get to a critical mass to get that new revenue stream, but there is no guarantee that the revenue will materialize. Ultimately they are working against the clock because while investors will be satisfied initially that they are getting their $15000 return after 5 years, they are going to be expecting their $25,000 capital outlay back, and the simple fact is that the scheme does *not* have enough cash to pay very many of these investors out.
Anyone considering a scheme like this should hopefully be quite wary of the possibility of getting their initial investment back at the end of the agreement and not blindsided by the fact that people currently in the scheme are getting their promised 12% payments each month without fail. If there is one thing to think about, it is depreciation. If a machine really cost $25,000, how much would it be worth after 5 years of use? The schemes will claim that the machines are effectively owned by you, where they take care of the maintenance etc. to re-assure you in case anything were to go wrong. When the scheme collapses you may very well find yourself the owner of one or more of these machines, with retail space rent owed, and a machine worth a few hundred dollars in used parts that you need to remove and find storage for. You invested $25,000, got back maybe $15,000 and a proprietary vending machine for a brand that no longer exists.
Is it illegal? The thing about Ponzi's is that they are like a market bubble. They're easy to spot after the fact, and while "Bears" might point fingers at them, authorities typically only act on them once something does go wrong. The perpetrators of these schemes are generally people with very eager ambitions that believe it's better to attempt something and ask forgiveness than forever seek permission. The 12% guarantee is an incentive to attempt to attract enough interest to hit critical mass. The questions you need to ask are:
- Is this criminally motivated or is it merely eager ambition?
- How realistic are their goals and possible revenue? is > 12% really achievable?
- Can I afford to lose some/most of this money to find out for sure?
Monday, February 17, 2020
Defogging windows, for Australians
Growing up in Canada you deal with freaking cold days and frosted windows.
Your car boot invariably holds a snow brush & scraper like this:
You don't want to get caught out without one because clearing snow and especially ice off windows without one involves a lot of pain. Ice on glass will chew down any library or credit cards that you might try to chip away enough space to see.
Even if your windows aren't covered in ice, and you can brush back the snow and use the wipers to keep the screen clear of snow, you have to deal with the considerably fogging that a warm, breathing body makes in a cold car with a windscreen that is being chilled considerably below the ambient (usually negative) temperatures outside.
Why do windows fog?
Fogging is simple condensation. Warm, humid air inside with a cold surface you want to look through. Water vapour condenses on cold surfaces, like when you take a cold drink in a glass and watch the water accumulate on the outside of the glass. In places like Canada, fogging is inevitable and easy to understand with temperatures involved. In Australia it doesn't get nearly as cold, but given the much higher humidity, when wind and rain strike the windscreen/windows this can cool the glass enough to cause water vapour in the car to condense on the glass. To prevent fogging you can do one of 3 things: Dry out the air, warm up the surface, or wipe the condensation.
A/C and defogging
Most people here know that A/C can defog windows, and it does a pretty good job at it. However, A/C is a short-term fix for fogging and can make fogging considerably worse if used incorrectly, and can make your trip considerably less comfortable on longer trips in cooler, wet weather. A/C is a good method to initially de-fog windows in a car, however it is important to use the right vent settings to avoid making the problem a lot worse.
Most cars will have controls to change the vent options, fan speed, temperature, plust a toggle for A/C, an option for "fresh" vs recycled air, and the infamously confusing upside down hotplate.
Looking at the left dial there are 5 settings, from left to right these are: Top Vents, Top + Bottom Vents, Bottom Vents, Bottom + Windscreen Vents, and Windscreen Vents.
When using A/C to defog windows, *DO NOT* use the Windscreen Vent options. Yes, initially this will clear your windscreen quickly, but especially in a moving car this will chill your windscreen, causing condensation to form up even faster if the A/C is turned off, and can eventually start to fog up even with the A/C on. Instead, you should use a top and/or bottom vent option with the Recycle Air setting turned on.
The Upside Down Hotplate Button
This button is for the rear window defogger. If you look at most cars rear window you will see a series of horizontal lines in the glass. These are heating element wires that turn on with this button. These warm up the glass and defog the glass or melt exterior ice formed on the glass in the winter.
Proper Defogging Settings
A/C defogs windows because one of the key features of A/C is that it dries out the air. This lowers the humidity considerably inside the car, especially when on Recycle. However, A/C also cools the interior of the car, which can become rather uncomfortable, and if directed at the windows, cooling the windows can compound the fogging problem. The best way to defog windows is instead to warm the windows.
Keeping a car comfortable and defogged when driving in raining can take a bit of adjusting the climate control settings, but isn't that difficult. If the windows are initially fogged up, a quick burst from the A/C on recycle can dry out the interior of the car to clear most of the windows. While the A/C is running you can turn up the heat. Car A/C are not reverse-cycle so you don't need to adjust the temperature down to turn on the A/C. The temp settings only control the separate heating elements, not the A/C so the A/C can be drying the air while the heaters are on. As the heat starts to warm up the car, turn off the A/C and switch the vent settings to blow it at the windscreen and turn up the fan speed, switching back to Fresh air rather than recycled. If the rear window is fogged you can switch on the rear defogger button. It's best to do this when the car is stationary as the windows may initially start to fog, especially if the A/C had been chilling the window surface. Once the windscreen is clear you can turn down the heat/fan speed to a more comfortable setting, keeping it on the windscreen vent. If the side windows are fogged and you want to reduce the overall fogging you can repeat a short A/C pulse but be sure to switch the vent away from the windscreen to avoid chilling the windscreen.
Hopefully this helps anyone annoyed by fogging windows in the rain and feeling like they have to freeze themselves to keep the windows clear, or worried about using heat at the same time as the A/C. :)
Your car boot invariably holds a snow brush & scraper like this:
You don't want to get caught out without one because clearing snow and especially ice off windows without one involves a lot of pain. Ice on glass will chew down any library or credit cards that you might try to chip away enough space to see.
Even if your windows aren't covered in ice, and you can brush back the snow and use the wipers to keep the screen clear of snow, you have to deal with the considerably fogging that a warm, breathing body makes in a cold car with a windscreen that is being chilled considerably below the ambient (usually negative) temperatures outside.
Why do windows fog?
Fogging is simple condensation. Warm, humid air inside with a cold surface you want to look through. Water vapour condenses on cold surfaces, like when you take a cold drink in a glass and watch the water accumulate on the outside of the glass. In places like Canada, fogging is inevitable and easy to understand with temperatures involved. In Australia it doesn't get nearly as cold, but given the much higher humidity, when wind and rain strike the windscreen/windows this can cool the glass enough to cause water vapour in the car to condense on the glass. To prevent fogging you can do one of 3 things: Dry out the air, warm up the surface, or wipe the condensation.
A/C and defogging
Most people here know that A/C can defog windows, and it does a pretty good job at it. However, A/C is a short-term fix for fogging and can make fogging considerably worse if used incorrectly, and can make your trip considerably less comfortable on longer trips in cooler, wet weather. A/C is a good method to initially de-fog windows in a car, however it is important to use the right vent settings to avoid making the problem a lot worse.
Most cars will have controls to change the vent options, fan speed, temperature, plust a toggle for A/C, an option for "fresh" vs recycled air, and the infamously confusing upside down hotplate.
Looking at the left dial there are 5 settings, from left to right these are: Top Vents, Top + Bottom Vents, Bottom Vents, Bottom + Windscreen Vents, and Windscreen Vents.
When using A/C to defog windows, *DO NOT* use the Windscreen Vent options. Yes, initially this will clear your windscreen quickly, but especially in a moving car this will chill your windscreen, causing condensation to form up even faster if the A/C is turned off, and can eventually start to fog up even with the A/C on. Instead, you should use a top and/or bottom vent option with the Recycle Air setting turned on.
The Upside Down Hotplate Button
This button is for the rear window defogger. If you look at most cars rear window you will see a series of horizontal lines in the glass. These are heating element wires that turn on with this button. These warm up the glass and defog the glass or melt exterior ice formed on the glass in the winter.
Proper Defogging Settings
A/C defogs windows because one of the key features of A/C is that it dries out the air. This lowers the humidity considerably inside the car, especially when on Recycle. However, A/C also cools the interior of the car, which can become rather uncomfortable, and if directed at the windows, cooling the windows can compound the fogging problem. The best way to defog windows is instead to warm the windows.
Keeping a car comfortable and defogged when driving in raining can take a bit of adjusting the climate control settings, but isn't that difficult. If the windows are initially fogged up, a quick burst from the A/C on recycle can dry out the interior of the car to clear most of the windows. While the A/C is running you can turn up the heat. Car A/C are not reverse-cycle so you don't need to adjust the temperature down to turn on the A/C. The temp settings only control the separate heating elements, not the A/C so the A/C can be drying the air while the heaters are on. As the heat starts to warm up the car, turn off the A/C and switch the vent settings to blow it at the windscreen and turn up the fan speed, switching back to Fresh air rather than recycled. If the rear window is fogged you can switch on the rear defogger button. It's best to do this when the car is stationary as the windows may initially start to fog, especially if the A/C had been chilling the window surface. Once the windscreen is clear you can turn down the heat/fan speed to a more comfortable setting, keeping it on the windscreen vent. If the side windows are fogged and you want to reduce the overall fogging you can repeat a short A/C pulse but be sure to switch the vent away from the windscreen to avoid chilling the windscreen.
Hopefully this helps anyone annoyed by fogging windows in the rain and feeling like they have to freeze themselves to keep the windows clear, or worried about using heat at the same time as the A/C. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)