This may not be true of all such apps, but I open mine and it subdivides trips by every stop (including stop signs and lights). Then when you don't do it for 3-4 days, you have 50 trips you need to click through.
My time was worth more than the savings they offered. In fact, it was insulting.
I should not have to spend 3 hours per month categorizing my trips for their data mining expedition for a $30 discount (especially not one that evaporated at the next renewal, because I wasn't safe enough). That app was rigged.
Yes, models have to be shared with regulators and the regulators have to be convinced that the premiums insurers wish to charge are actuarially justified (supported by the data).
That's for the corporation as a whole and counts the net of investment profits and insurance losses. If you open their earnings release, you can see combined ratios over 100%, indicating that the total cost of operating the insurance is negative, but this is offset by investment profits (as the original commenter mentioned - they make money off the float).
> Decommissioning by boosting an object to a higher “graveyard” orbit to extend orbital lifetime is often done with smaller satellites operating near geostationary orbits (~36,000 km in altitude). This is not a realistic target for space station decommissioning because of the large mass of the space station and distance from its operational altitude to a “graveyard” orbit. Existing propulsive assets (spacecraft) do not have the capability to raise the space station’s altitude to such a high target.
For perspective, the ISS is currently orbiting at 400km altitude. Typical graveyard orbits are just beyond geostationary, so lets call it 36500km.
Orbits get somewhat emptier beyond 2500km altitude, but you'd still risk spent rocket stages or defunct satellites hitting the ISS if you don't go all the way out beyond geostationary. Maybe you can stay at lower orbits if you dock a vehicle that can provide thrust for obstacle avoidance even after the main station powers off.
Reinsurance doesn't make the problem go away. Sure it caps State Farm's exposure to these correlated events, but it won't bring their combined ratio into balance. State Farm would still be on the hook for the first $XXX million in losses. I would also expect it to be harder (read: more expensive) to buy the reinsurance given the increasing risk.
Correct, the pilots did not have any indication in the cockpit. ATC had to identify which plane the tire fell from, contact the plane, the plane had to talk to their company before deciding what to do.
Strongly recommend insurance or financial services in general. Many are flexible with remote work, and some are now fully remote. The meeting load is moderate, but the actual work load is low, timelines are very long and low on stress. Plus, health insurance benefits are usually decent.
That's more or less what the data you linked to[1] demonstrates: a us average 3.5% increase per year. Not a median though, a mean. The median increase is probably more like 2% per year, but a lot of that seems to be localized to areas that didn't recover after 2008. If your area recovered after 2008, we can assume it's in demand and likely to continue to appreciate faster than the median, or closer to the 3% figure.
That's already happening in the sense that companies are able to offer these discounts for their telematics-using customers by surcharging all their other customers. If you're not using one of these devices, you're already paying for it, even if it's not formally recorded as a fee.
