Similarly to how React does it I'd imagine. There is a static vector of `State` elements that is initially empty and is filled on the first render with each call to use_state. When calling use_state on subsequent renders, this vector is read from. This is also why, like React, use_state calls must always be in the same order across renders.
Is there a specific example you are referring to re: “ People moments after surviving imminent death will jockey for positions of influence with their saviors”?
Edit: After replying, I realized you may have meant the last sentence with the questions. The “Who wrote Plato’s Republic?” is at the end of the New York Times piece. As to the other one, Who’s buried in Grant’s Tomb?, here: https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/grants-tomb/492647...
"Only 10 percent of California's 7 million plus homeowners have earthquake insurance – and the number has dropped by more than half since the deadly quake" (2014)
You can get an estimate for an earthquake insurance policy with the California Earthquake Authority.
I'm not clear how a CEA policy makes financial sense for a standard single-family, owner-occupied house. The only affordable plans have massive deductibles and only partial cost coverage. If "the big one" hits, it's likely that:
(a) CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway.
(b) The whole community will be ruined so assuming all of my family is still alive we'd best move somewhere else anyway (and a rebuild or undamaged house wouldn't sell).
(c) Some kind of government bailout or community help program will be available.
For smaller earthquakes, it's likely I'd either fail to meet my deductible or be unable to pay the non-covered portion (which has to be paid out first before they'll begin to pay for further repairs).
Am I wrong, or is there something I'm missing? I wish this weren't the case.
Different country, but for the Christchurch earthquake in 2011:
- our equivalent of CEA (EQC) did indeed run out of money, although it’s mostly reinsurance and govt backed
- insurance companies went under, because even for a small city (400k), costs ran to $40 billion
- it’s now very very expensive to get earthquake coverage, in some parts of the country you are paying multiples of what less earthquake prone parts of the country pay, so people don’t bother. so they’ll lose everything next time, and we’ll foot the bill as a country
Scale of California probably means amplification if these effects, hundreds of billions in losses.
> CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway.
I don’t understand why insurance companies can run out of money whenever they need to pay claims. I’m sure they know they’re going to go under, why can’t they get insurance on themselves?
Most insurance works on the basis that we have some underlying risk (probability) and resulting cost (multiplied together gives us the expectation) of annual payout. A lot of these funds however are financed through CAT bonds [1]. The idea of CAT bonds is that the sort of financial business cycle (a la 2007/8 housing market crash) are decorrelated enough with other financial movements that you "shouldn't™" both have a bad natural disaster and a sudden shift in the business cycle. However, a lot of these insurance companies are then further reinsured with specific contractual limitations so that ideally the fund won't run out.
In the real world, the government can act as insurer of last resort and use tax dollars to with financing (though these usually are ideally set up with the initial fund).
Insurers often issue reinsurance for/with each other.
Both insurers and general reinsurance firms will some times sell their risk to investors (in the capital markets) through vehicles such as Insurance Linked Securities. An ILS provides one form of risk transfer. There are others.
In both cases, if the risk is tied to say, catastrophe insurance, then this offers (investors) returns uncorrelated with the stock market.
What’s the incentive to purchase insurance? It will reduce their profits. If you are an executive of a company offering earthquake insurance, better to just keeps profits high now, make a high salary, and when the big quake hits, declare bankruptcy and walk away.
they're much more sophisticated than that. they'll do things like say the damage was caused by wind, not water. they'll influence forecasters to call it a "super-storm" instead of a hurricane, and for an earthquake, something equally creative:
- the building was defective/you didn't have it inspected by our experts, so maybe the foundation already had cracks from the last EQ, in that case we can't pay the claim
- insurance only covers up to 5.0/6.0
- although it was reported as a 7.5, you live 4 miles away from the epicenter, meaning the EQ was likely below a 6.0, in which case your policy doesn't kick in/we'll only pay 30% of your claim
- the EQ cracked a water main/gas line, and most of the damage to your house is from the flood/fire, which isn't covered under EQ policy. try suing the insurance of the utility company.
- we determined that fracking is likely the cause of this quake, in which case it's manmade and not covered. you can sue the oil company though.
- we checked the seismometer and we dispute the USGS reporting that it was a 6.0/7.0/8.0/our geologist has published research saying that current methods of measuring earthquakes are in question. so although we don't need correct science to collect your premium, we do need perfect science to pay any claims. Or if you settle now, we'll pay 40% of your coverage or else you can try to sue us and maybe get paid 10 years from now
- we don't cover the specific region where all the earthquake damage occurred/that requires a different policy
- we only cover incidental/secondary damage, like clocks falling off the wall (which, of course, you must have a receipt for and will be paid minus depreciation and deductible). your policy doesn't cover utility line damage, structural damage, or earth-moving damage.
They'll take a hit in their ratings if they do. Insurance companies are rated by independent analysts such as A.M. Best, Moody's, and Standard and Poor's. Customers, especially large customers, research issuers before purchasing insurance, and a poorly-rated company is likely to get fewer customers.
Some risks are just uninsurable, even for countries. Large scale flooding and earthquake damage caused so much loss that no one can afford to pay for it. The US is lucky it can issue debt cheaply.
I understand why people keep bring up earthquake insurance, but it's not that many of us haven't considered it. It can be expensive to the extent that you are better off reinforcing your home rather than spending any money on said insurance. "The expensive deductible related to earthquake insurance are sometimes as high as 15% of the value of the home, which has many homeowners giving the insurance a second thought."[1]
Most insurance companies bailed out of the business of earthquake insurance after Northridge because when it happens, the claims are enormous. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake was an indirect factor that lead to the Panic of 1907 due to the high volume of insurance claims.
I think the general consensus is that you'd be better using your money to get a construction loan to brace and bolt your home to resist earthquakes. I was quoted $175/month for earthquake insurance. That translates into a $25-30k loan. You can do a lot of structural improvement for that.
When I looked into it, adding on earthquake insurance would cost more than my regular homeowners insurance, and like you said would still have a huge deductible without even covering most of my belongings
Furthermore, if a big quake happens, insurance companies are going to go broke paying out claims. Homeowners are going to be at the back of the line meaning most of them aren't going to see a dime.
Why? So the sleazy insurance companies can deny or only pay a small percentage of your claim?? No thanks, the insurance industry has reduced itself to a rent seeking, regulatory capture machine with nearly zero value proposition for customers at this point.
It does, and the article affirms this. However it's a question of relative magnitude. The energy dissipated by the smaller quakes is dwarfed in comparison to larger quakes. The energy of a 5.5 quake is on the order of 1/1000th the energy of a mag 7 quake.
I'm in the mountains in San Bernadino (Lake Arrowhead / Big Bear) and I felt it pretty good. Shook the door to the bathroom. Thought my wife was being impatient.
I don't know how to explain how the college experience is amazing without writing several paragraphs. I honestly thought my sentiments were near-universal. For several years I got to literally pick a topic out of thin air and then have seasoned professionals teach me all about it three days a week. I got to live independently and among bright people all in my age group and craft whatever life I wanted within the relatively safe confines of a university. Then there's all the tradition and legend and adventure that goes with the average college experience. Meeting so many new people from so many different places and backgrounds...
Moved from a small rural town to Chicago. Was surrounded by professors and industry professional instructors. Most of my non PhD instructors had decades of industry experience from the likes of Motorola, Comes or Bell labs/Lucent.
Classes at my school were generally pretty small, except for a few weeder classes in freshman/sophomore years.
I studied Electrical and Computer Engineering (got 2 B.S. degrees). All of the instructors in the EE department were extremely approachable and really cared about their students (at least about the students that cared for themselves and sought engagement). I had one professor that helped me move from a half tuition scholarship to a 3/4 tuition scholarship.
The school I went to also set me up well to succeed professionally. Not just theory, but leadership roles, independent projects, interprofessional projects, etc.
Not to mention the social aspects. I lived on campus my first 2 years, off campus my last 2 with a roommate. I got my internship end of my sophomore year as I replaced a graduating senior on my floor when I was an RA that year, and he referred me (he knew I was already dabbling in the tech stack he used). Spent 3 years working as an intern before I got my first salaried position in finance on a referral of my best friend from school. Spent 9 years at that job before moving on. Went from being a very junior dev in that role to owning several critical systems for trading at a hedge fund. Ive now spent 15 years in finance and have school to thank, though I never expected to be there. Hell, I wanted to design processors.
But, do I regret going to college? Not one bit. Sometimes, I wish I'd finished my masters, but I don't need it for more than resume fodder. My work experience amd the companies I've worked for open far more doors. I get at least 5-7 emails from recruiters per week.
