If by unfairly characterized you mean every white guy and their jewish grandmother having been called a Nazi in the past year, then I might consider it.
245 karma · joined April 19, 2017
Of course your definitions are loose and biased, you know that. You're just venting and telling people you don't care if you're wrong.
Real estate is not as easy to diversify as stocks and bonds, certain unexpected and uninsurable external shocks can have disastrous effects on the profitability of your investment. Things such as new rent control, property tax increase, termite damage, spiteful tenants, corrupt HoA, and sudden market volatility can all cause you to lose significant money.
I'm not getting the message behind the Churchill quote, landlords clearly have operating expenses to commit towards keeping a plot of land and shelter in useful or livable condition.
7 + 89 = 96
4 + 56 = 60
The second "+" isn't registering because the animation tied to the operator buttons for some reason only blocks other non-numerical inputs for the duration of the animation.
I don't even own an iPhone or have experienced the bug, just guessing at the cause.
I think collisions below 40 mph are quite survivable if they're not two-way head on/overlap and the cars are below a certain weight and designed to bounce against each other.
They just need to make every autonomous car on the road 1500-2000lb and install rubber bumpers. The neural net will figure it out itself after a few million real world collisions and daily commutes will gradually become less jarring and eventful.
Certainly a higher error tolerance and lower risk of fatality as compared to a 5000 lb Tesla that goes to 0-60 in 2.4 seconds and takes a football field and a half to slow down.
Maybe they should just make all self-driving cars weigh 1500 lbs and top out at 45 mph. Not a big deal when they run into each other, like bumper cars.
Anyone with a calculator can tell the numbers don't add up. You're either embellishing or you got scammed.
There is no way your loan payments were reduced and the remaining term cut in half at the same time, unless your original interest rate was above 20-25%.
SoFi would also feed investors both false information (as mentioned in the article), and inflated user growth numbers fueled by their freedom as a "startup" to spend insane amounts of money on customer acquisition with no regard for profitability.
Basically, SoFi spent all their money convincing people through advertising that they were "a new kind of finance company", all without actually creating anything new.
Turns out the company stops growing if you stop giving them money, and VCs didn't want to lose their $100 million commitment or admit that the company was DoA, so along came more rounds of funding.
There you go, that's the path to a $4 billion tech valuation with no actual tech product.
In offering so many products, what economics of scale do they bring over established banks and credit unions? If there are any newly discovered efficiencies, they certainly aren't passed down to the consumer as the rates I've been quoted for their loan products are terrible; it's shocking that they get any organic business at all.
They call themselves "a new kind of finance company" but there's literally nothing new to benefit the consumer. If anything, they've taken multiple steps back because they're a 1990s boiler room down to their culture, their management, and especially their channel of sales: they masquerade as an "tech company," but really they're just a web form that prints leads to their sleazy call center.
If you tick the boxes of the specific demographic they're going after (High Earners, Not Rich Yet - as they call them at SoFi) and you make the mistake of giving them your information by applying for any one of their products, all the mini-Belforts at the company will relentlessly pitch you over the phone to trust them to manage all of your wealth... for a princely return of 1.18%.
They have no defensible moats, they have no IP, they have no talent on staff. Their Chief Technical Officer is the CEO's wife, who has a 1 year remote degree from Stanford and no prior experience in software. Seemingly her job is just to stand around and pretend everything is "normal" while her husband sexually assaults girls half her age in the room across. How sad.
There is no need to spread misinformation. While it is true that a hard inquiry will have a minor effect on your credit score (less than a 5 point hit), multiple hard credit inquiries from car dealerships or mortgage lenders within a period of 45 days only count as a single inquiry.
You're not at all disadvantaged by taking your business elsewhere, you're just making things up to furnish your dubious story.
Net neutrality was a disappointment, but myself and others in the tech community will learn to deal with the inconvenience.
The plight of illegal immigrants and the "religion of peace" has zero relevance to me, I simply don't care enough one way or the other to vote in favor of them.
For an individual to make $2 million a year for himself at a 90% tax rate, he would have to own 100% of a company generating $20 million in profit.
Assuming the same individual's skills were worth $200k/yr in market salary, you would be suggesting that the individual must have had a greater than 10% chance of growing a $20 million profit business to achieve an expected value of $200k/yr in compensation. You would be wrong.
However, if the individual only had to generate $2.5 million a year in profit through their business to take home $2 million a year, that 10% success rate is more realistic.
Accounting and law firms shouldn't be worried about automation just yet when frat stars are still being paid $140k/yr out of college to make powerpoint presentations.
Too many Harvard grads being paid too much money to work too many hours to add too little societal value.
Auto loan risk is significantly mitigated by modern advancements in GPS & tracking technology. No other collateral is as easily repossessable as a modern car.
You can argue the total societal value net the societal cost of putting some people out of jobs, but saying you can't think of any application where AI can complement peoples lives is being intentionally hyperbolic and is a bad start to a discussion.
If you invest a startup that claims to have been founded only 2 years ago and says to have already acquired so and so number of users, you might assume a certain velocity of growth for that company. If it turns out that the founders had unofficially invested 5 years of labor rather than 2, you just lost 60% value in your investment assuming the company valuation was somewhat proportional to their "traction."
The biggest question in a startups lifetime is "will they be profitable?" not "have they spent enough on Google AdWords to make it look like usership is going up?"