Youtube comments of shazmosushi (@shazmosushi).
-
1800
-
206
-
197
-
188
-
121
-
119
-
118
-
109
-
101
-
101
-
94
-
89
-
86
-
82
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
71
-
68
-
8:24 The bamboo ceiling concept is an interesting concept that I should probably read more about (starting with the Wikipedia article). By the way, it might be a good video idea too.
It seems like most of the worlds best technology companies have leaders who are classified by the US government as "Asian": CEO of AMD Lisa Su (Taiwanese American), Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (Indian American), Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai of Google (Indian American) and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang (Taiwanese American, though he was a co-founder so didn't get promoted into his position). Side note: there's actually a really long list of notable leaders on the (hilariously named) Wikipedia pages "List of Taiwanese Americans" and "List of Asian Americans". Lol, it does not appear to be an exhaustive list, but it's a start.
Of course the fact that so many companies have leadership (and middle management) being Asian American does not preclude racism and discrimination of course. The Asian American immigrant leaders I've listed spent their childhood in the United States and "speak" American both culturally and linguistically. Perhaps some individuals may be brought up in a way that looks down upon eg, being a "mover and a shaker" and "rocking the boat", which perhaps may not be well suited for being promoted to leadership roles in technology (at least in the typical American business context).
All that said, when it comes to measuring racism you need to look at proportions of populations and do statistical analysis: Asian Americans are underrepresented in leadership roles by education, but over represented by percentage of population.
67
-
63
-
63
-
61
-
58
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@Asianometry No, in the geopolitical climate from 2015 through December 2020, they would absolutely 100% block it. Consider that in November 2019, the Australian government blocked Lion Dairy (then owned by Japanese beverage company Kirin) from being bought by the Chinese company Mengniu Dairy. The most interesting thing about this decision was that it was given the greenlight from Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board (the equivalent to CFIUS), our competition regulator (the ACCC: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and recommended by Treasury. But the deal was reportedly (and somewhat controversially) vetoed by the Treasurer for reasons that were never made public.
The direct economic cost of this strategy is actually very low: only 5% of Australia's foreign investment is from China. Also politically, it's increasingly popular to block Chinese firms from buying Australia's assets. I highly recommend Pew Research's article "Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries". More recently, since Australia called for an independent inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, China has stopped meeting with Australian diplomats, issued a list of "14 demands" through its embassy, and started arbitrarily blocking Australia's lucrative exports of coal/wine/barley/lobster/etc under various pretenses such as illegal subsidies and supposed quality issues. This has culminated in Australia taking China to the World Trade Organization for arbitration.
There's some speculation that Australia's new trade minister might change strategy to placate the Chinese Communist Party. But I highly doubt such a change would ever involve approving an Atlassian sale: the software is used for project management in major companies around the world. Confluence Wiki, JIRA task tracker and (especially) BitBucket naturally contain trade secrets, business strategy, source code / blueprints, and more. It's very important to issue patches for security vulnerabilities in software used at major companies WITHOUT representatives of the Chinese Communist Party being involved in the process. Also, Atlassian has major offices in the US and is traded on a US stock exchange, so CFIUS rules apply and will definitely block any sale for the previously mentioned reasons.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
My first smartphone back in the early 2010s had a MediaTek chip in it (MT6575). It had pretty good performance for its era. There were hundreds of different white-label versions of the same reference design, each competing with each other on price and by selecting slightly different components for better battery capacity/RAM/storage/camera etc. The worst part of using a Chinese smartphone was being forced to use the white-label brand's custom modified Android version, complete with all the non-removable Chinese spyware like AdUps: you were stuck with the untrusted vendor's spyware riddled operating system. Advanced users who re-install their operating systems enjoyed very little support from the broader custom ROM community, and no support from the more trusted custom ROMs such as LineageOS (formerly named CyanogenMod). Also the tablet/smartphone manufacturing quality was pretty bad, at least in those days: the microphone and headphone jack broke on that phone, and a similar era tablet had bad overheating and stability issues.
That's why I swore off the cheap Chinese white-label brands that MediaTek chips tend find their way into. This was way before the current human-rights situation came to light and modern "boycott China" movement starting gathering momentum. After the subsequent death of the Google's excellent Nexus line, these days I recommend certain Samsung Galaxy M smartphone models. They are very reasonably priced, assembled in Vietnam rather than China (which is better for human-rights), have excellent screen quality if you choose the right model according to the specifications, have exceptionally great battery life (again, if you choose the right model according to the specifications), they get regular security updates from Samsung, and don't have Chinese spyware (but unfortunately have other kinds of bloatware from Samsung). The M series is basically filling the niche that Xiaomi/Oppo/Vivo and the other internationally successful Chinese smartphone brands have been doing quite successfully: great bang-for-buck mid-range phones.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The CSIS link above does not contain the SpaceX's advertised Falcon 9 reused priced ($50 million for 15,600kg to low Earth orbit). EDIT: Correction. As Fred Bloggs points out below, the $50 million figure referenced in my previous sentence is for an expendable relaunch, thus launching 22,800kg, not 15,600kg. The number came from a press conference in 2018 where they apparently were talking about the Block 4's first reflight, all of which were expended at the time.
The economics of reusability is pushing the Falcon 9's costs to $1,200/kg in 2021 dollars, given they have almost demonstrated 10 flights. This is a halving of cost compared to the expendable price of $2,600/kg to low Earth orbit. The misconceptions and misinformation in this video annoyed me so much I created a video titled "SpaceX Unbusted". I hope people check my video out, because I do analysis that many reading this comment will be interested to hear :)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7:35 The 750,000 figure you cite for Australia is those born in Hong Kong and mainland China, but there's actually ~1.2 million people with Chinese heritage. (EDIT: I see you're talking about 2011 figures -- you're probably correct on those numbers then).
As many reading may know, like the United States, Australia has a long and storied history of anti-Asian racism -- from way back in the 1800s "gold rush" era to the present day. It was particularly pronounced during the 1990s with an anti-immigration 'One Nation Party' led by a woman named Pauline Hanson who made highly controversial statements like "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate". Australia is widely considered an immigration success story, experiencing rapid population growth due to new migrants, but in the present day there's some growing issues.
Most alarmingly it's been discovered that the Chinese Communist Party's political interference and infiltration bureau called the United Front Work Department is attempting to switch the allegiances of all ethnically Chinese people around the world -- regardless of their nationality and how little connection they have to China. In 2017, the then-head of China's security services (Meng Jianzhu) threatened Australian politicians that they would "instruct" the Chinese-Australian community to vote against one side of politics if they don't support passing a law (the Australia-China extradition treaty).
Since then there's been many instances of Chinese government infiltration and intimidation against the Chinese-Australian community, and the broader society. It's very worrying the growing use of the term "ABC" (meaning American-Born Chinese or Australian-Born Chinese) that is often amplified by China's state media to refer to people who have lived their whole life in Australia or America who happen to be ethnically Chinese.
This kind of thing is happening in all the Chinese diaspora communities around the world, but Australia just happens to be more aware of it. It will take a lot of effort to remove this political interference and infiltration, but it's obviously of utmost importance.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The concept of the "3rd world" was originally based on the Cold War worldview: The free world / first world: US and allied countries, the second world: Soviet Union, and allied communist satellites, and the third-world: the non-aligned regions (India, Africa, etc) which were universally poor. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the "1st world" has come to mean developed countries, and "3rd world" simply meaning being the poor and corrupt countries (sometimes called "developing countries" or "emerging economies" but really some of those countries are neither). Also as Peter Thiel suggested in Zero To One, the world's richest countries shouldn't really consider themselves "developed" because they can still develop far further than they are currently.
With this new Cold War between the US and China, we might see a return of the "free world" rhetoric. Even in the first Cold War the United States had massive political upheaval (the 1950/1960s Civil Rights Movement that ended segregation, Anti-Vietnam War protests). The US is no stranger to massive protests and upheaval. Maybe this time is different, but at least in recent history it has been managed with careful leadership where the United States come out the stronger for it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
An assumption from this "debunking" is the idea that relaunching a rocket booster has to cost 50% of the launch cost, which is just plain wrong. There's no fundamental reason rockets can't be "gas and go" without any refurbishment between launches. SpaceX have already landed their first stages more than 70 times and re-launched 50. They have had turnaround times of less than ~50 days, and this duration has been getting shorter. SpaceX are doing detailed inspections for their "fleet leading" boosters right now. But the Merlin 1D engines can take 10 full length burns without inspections, and rocket bodies can be built to withstand repeated launches without inspection.
20:40 "[Competitors] say a break even point is near 10 re-uses and no one's gotten close to that". I'm surprised Thunderf00t didn't check this fact for yourself, because your information is definitely out-of-date: SpaceX already have got 8 re-uses of a Falcon 9 first stage (core B1051 to be exact), and that core is still active and will likely be launched twice more. Also SpaceX competitors argue that you need 10 re-uses to break even is based on the cost profiles of those companies. Most of a rocket's cost is in its engines but this is even more the case for the Falcon 9.
The market for rocket launches is currently pretty inelastic, so charging customers significantly less doesn't help boost demand -- it just eats into SpaceX profits. Right now customers are continuing to pay full price for a new booster, and close to new price for a re-used booster but SpaceX's internal accounting is benefiting greatly from the vastly reduced launch costs. They're capturing a lot of these savings by launching 18 Starlink missions so far (and many more coming). If SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch really were eg, $150 million this would not at all be feasible even with the external investment.
The reason they can launch Starlink so cheaply is the first stage booster is already fully paid off, because
SpaceX are selling the 1st/2nd/3rd launches to a commercial customer (for ~$50 million), then getting a free fully paid off booster that's good for another 7 launches. When SpaceX re-use both fairings (fully paid off by the original customers) then SpaceX just pays for fuel (which is around 200k) and the second stage (which less than $10 million). They are able to do an orbital Starlink launch for pennies on the dollar: a factor of 10 cheaper in low-earth orbit access.
The biggest thing from this video I agree with is the price gouging of the government anchor customers like NASA and USAF. This "subsidy" helps pay for SpaceX's fixed costs allowing them to launch at much closer to their marginal cost to anybody who is wants to. But there is no reason that another launch provider couldn't have done that.
SpaceX has vastly increasing the number of rockets launched by any single company and capturing the all launches up for competition (pricing all competing launch firms out in the process). They have been a revolution in terms of price and access to space in the notoriously stagnant space-launch industry.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
For viewers who enjoy Asianometry, I recommend watching videos by PolyMatter (China), Wendover Productions (Aircraft+Logistics), Caspian Report (Geopolitics), VisualPolitik (Geopolitics), CGPGrey, Johnny Harris (Vice / New York Times video journalist). For more China specific videos, serpentza/laowhy86/advchina has some gold (among lots of clickbait). You may also like Cheddar and Quartz (for random topics), and Newsthink (SpaceX/Tesla/Elon Musk), ColdFusion TV (future tech focused), RealEngineering, CuriousDroid (mostly engineering focused)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In some way I'm inclined to agree. Almost all areas in Australia without HFC keep their old (formerly Telstra-owned) copper telephone cables (so no digging up people's gardens) while the rest of the network is upgraded to FTTC (so fiber-optics all the way to those oval shaped pits in the footpath). Everyone on FTTC has the option to pay $3000 per residence to upgrade to FTTP (under the "Technology Choice Program"). Side note: I heard from ISP owners that installing a fiber-optic "lead in" shouldn't cost more than $300, so NBN Co charging $3,000 is still a bit crazy. For FTTN, getting FTTP costs a crazy $10,000 upgrade per premises under the "Technology Choice Program".
As you may know, FTTC can in theory ~1000mbps speeds with G.Fast, but you may have to replace ageing copper telephone cabling to get there (at which point you may as well install FTTP because most of the installation cost is labour).
FTTP is absolutely not "glorified HFC": Yes, HFC can in theory also have speeds in excess of 1000mbps, but you need to have "DOCSIS 3.1" modem endpoints, high quality cabling and most expensively restructure the entire HFC network in a way that allows end users to get those speeds. Australia's HFC network was decided for cable TV (where there's a common signal broadcast to many houses), and restructuring the HFC network to handle this is extremely expensive.
While the term GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) is sometimes used interchangeably with FTTP you should be very careful: GPON can refer to the standard "G.984" (which NBN uses to provide a maximum 1000mbps connection), but by simply upgrading the modem in your kitchen (and some equipment in the exchange) you will be able to 10G-PON (10,000mbps), and I believe even NG-PON2 (40,000mbps).
Because fiber-optic cables can handle far more data than HFC. The HFC/FTTN/FTTC sounds cost-effective in theory, but so much money has been thrown at trying to make those ageing copper networks fit for purpose.
It costs a lot of money to rebuild the HFC or FTTC network to be capable of 1,000mbps. But now there are 10,000mbps and 40,000mbps network speeds that are being rolled out in countries with with fiber-optic networks. Even the Adelaide CBD has that, see GigCity.
Starlink and its 150mbps download will not be widely used in dense cities. NBN's FTTP network can get you 1,000mbps download today. And in future 10,000mbps under 10G-PON, with hopefully 40,000mbps under NG-PON2 being rolled out eventually. Simply put: for high-speed internet, nothing compared to fiber-optics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@remo27 "Not going bankrupt" a weak argument right now (but it's getting less weak every Starlink launch). They don't need to reach 12,000 satellites for adequate service: Starlink's 550 km orbital shell needs 1,440 satellites. It's only 6 launches from completion. SpaceX could potentially stop launching Starlink after that.
SpaceX has done several capital raising of close to $1 billion in the past several years (from Google/Fidelity $1 billion investment to the most recent $750 million capital raise). They've only launched 19 Starlink Falcon 9 launches so far, each with 60 satellites. That's only about $1 billion for launches at the $62 million sticker price, and building 1200 small satellites (I believe they weigh about 200kg each) at $100,000/each (I'm not sure the exact number) which would only be $1 billion.
Because of the continued investment, SpaceX detractors can make the case that the manufacturing and launching Starlnk is completely funded by investors, and SpaceX is not actually saving money on reusability.
I definitely don't agree with that assessment at all (see my video 'SpaceX Unbusted'), but I can see why people could believe that given SpaceX's continued capital raising their savings from reusability hasn't panned out.
Again, I definitely don't agree with the assessment, and every Starlink launch the evidence that SpaceX is saving a lot of money on reuse is increasing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredbloggs5902 That was just a citation for the flat price. There's an article from mid-2018 by SpaceNews titled "SpaceX targeting 24-hour turnaround in 2019, full reusability still in the works". The full quote is: Musk said SpaceX lowered prices from “about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster,” and expects “to see a steady reduction in prices” going forward.
Of course, they still haven't achieved 24 hour turnaround. They are only up to 27 days. And they gave up on second stage reusability. But the $50 million figure was in the past tense.
Almost every Falcon 9 launch is landed, and has a sticker price of around $50 million to launch 15,600kg when landing out at sea.
My reading of what I quoted in my previous comment is Shotwell is also saying the SpaceX sticker price is schedule dependent. If you want to launch in 6 months you will need to pay a big premium because you'll need to kick somebody else down the list. But if you want to launch in 2 years time, you get the $50 million launches. Seems pretty reasonable.
Also, it looks like SpaceX are not launching any expendably much anymore. I think they want to upsell customers to reusable Falcon Heavy, but haven't had much takers because the Falcon 9 is pretty cheap. For many years they did sell expenadable launches which were priced at $62 million for 22,800/kg, any they passed on inflation costs until they started dropping prices in the last few years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1