aeternus

Isn't cost and concentration also a factor?

How do you avoid creating a slum with dense low-income housing?

Seems like highly distributed low-cost, low-unit housing might work decently.

>If there is one rule, then it had to be the ‘safety net’ rule. It just means that everyone is safe to speak their minds during the retreat. There will be many sessions on feedback about product, company, people etc. If team members are worried about repercussions, then retreats wouldn’t work at all.

Sounds great in theory, but what do you do when someone starts sharing sexist or biased opinions. Or starts to personally degrade another employee or team?

For a responsible company, there are always repercussions, it is disingenuous to lead employees to believe otherwise.

Consider genuinely strengthening the argument of the person you are talking with before providing an alternate viewpoint.

What identity confirmation exists currently for phone companies? You can use a pay phone, pay cash for a prepaid wireless phone, phone in a motel room booked under a fake name, etc.

So ban all types of internet-based or IP-based calls? That's an extreme solution for a limited problem.

The problem is the lack of threat validation by police. There are many options now to validate threats, we have tech that can see through walls, robotics, drones. The fact is you have a very real chance of being shot by police without a trial and based on a phone-call.. and we are considering that a problem with the phone company?

When moving, cars can compare hundreds of different viewpoints. Multiple cameras provide for depth perception when stationary.

When issuing the EV cert, they don't actually validate any of that so it is of questionable utility.

I was surprised how easy it was to get an EV cert. The validators work from an offshore call-center and use sites like whitepages.com to lookup the business. They then call the number listed (you could have updated the listing just before). When they call you simply have to say "I am ... and my position is X at Y company. Then hand the phone to someone else who says something similar". There was no individual identity verification.

How do you decide which one needs to change its name? There's no objective measure for which is 'larger'.

The vast majority of consumers are not going to lookup an FDIC number, and even if they did, it is still not optimal since banks regularly merge which would cause confusion.

This is similar to what I'd like to see. Sharing cookies is somewhat dangerous since they could have login/user data, but it would totally work to avoid browser fingerprinting. With all the fingerprinting methods (screen resolution, GPU, HW, font-list, etc.) it's a losing proposition to attempt to remove all traces of a unique fingerprint.

Instead I'd like to see a browser that generates such a noisy fingerprint that it is useless: Each time I start an 'anonymous' session, grab a fingerprint from a pool that is sufficiently similar to mine that things render properly (matching resolution for example) but that has also been used by thousands/millions of others.

The problem with EV is how do you handle companies with the same name? Many banks have similar and in some cases the same name.

The domain name system already handles this by enforcing uniqueness and leveraging the market.

If you are concerned about timing it right, or macro-economic swings, simply purchase a corresponding long position in an index fund / S&P 500. Options do cost premiums, but shorts typically do not. You can however even recover the option premium with a similar strategy by selling a matching option on the index.

You can construct a trade that will make you money assuming your assumption is correct (that that company will underperform the market).

Buying existing assets only results in asset inflation if you lack a free market.

Otherwise, buying existing assets (such as houses) will increase the price which will trigger increased production of that asset.

That may maximize the immediate value to shareholders, but the real goal is to maximize all discounted future cash flows.

The entire purpose of a company is to return value to shareholders. Due to our current tax law, buybacks are a much better way to do that than dividends.

Are you saying that a company should invest 100% back into itself? There are a few very successful companies that do that, but the vast majority do not. Most companies return value to shareholders regularly in the form of dividends (or buybacks).

If you are confident in this scenario, then rollover your 401k into an IRA, enable options trading, and buy puts or short the companies that you believe took on too much debt.

No need to be an accredited investor.

Amazon's delivery drivers are more similar to Uber/Lyft drivers. They get minimal to no training and simply follow instructions via the app. Some of them have documented the experience on youtube and it's worth a watch. They often have to accept the route with minimal information.

I'd be interested to know how much of those costs are due to driver incentives and other costs related to expansion into new geographic regions vs. costs for established regions.

It could be that cutting costs is as simple as slowing down or pausing the expansion.

Seems like they are trying too hard, and actually made the message more cryptic than it needs to be.

Why not say "nuclear" or "radiation"? It seems very unlikely that the entire species will completely forget about the concept of nuclear radiation.

Thanks for the explanation, your argument makes sense.

I'd just look at it in a slightly different, perhaps more optimistic way. The fact that this investment has the highest ROI means that society as a whole would benefit from injecting additional capital into that investment.

In that sense, you're right that other investors have a less desirable price. However in theory at least, everyone is better off since that investment now has more capital, and is able to produce more output, positively contributing to the overall economy and increasing the size of the overall pie.

I've seen this as well, in my experience much of it comes from other orgs that see the engineering team come in late, or walk around the office tossing a ball into the air.

They start putting pressure on engineering managers to make sure their team is "working". Their team clearly needs more discipline and those 'slackers' need to be cut.

What they don't see is that the engineer tossing the ball figured out that the solution they were about to spend 2 weeks coding can be achieved by leveraging an existing library requiring only a couple days effort.

This is not really true. The market overall works as a surprisingly efficient resource allocation engine. Onions aren't a great example as they are a commodity rather than a stock.

Regardless, if someone does bid up the price of onions, it will typically trigger increased production of onions as farmers can make more profit by growing onions vs. another vegetable. This increased supply will pull the price back down.

There is pretty much always someone willing to buy or sell a stock at some price. The best way to think of the exchanges are as a perpetual auction. There is a line of buyers willing to buy shares at all different prices, and similarly there is a line of sellers willing to sell at various prices. Anyone can 'join the line' by entering a limit order at some price.

Buying at market price simply means you immediately buy from the seller offering the lowest price.

It's very rare for an order book to be empty for a particular stock, but you typically do see the bid/ask spread increase as a stock loses popularity.

I would love to see an open review system like that. Comments out in the open, along with the experiments and experimental data which supports or does not support the work.

Science is all about experimentation, yet we currently measure papers by number of citations rather than by experimental support.

Online is just too easy for people to follow up. Most class-actions require mailing in a form so probably have much lower participation rates.

Sustaining the expansion is questionable but the Fed's more specific goal has been to maintain inflation at around 2%, which it has done surprisingly well over the last 20 years. Of course, we have no way of knowing if the Fed's actions were actually causal.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1ED0

Personally, I like it.

My team and I can spend less time at the office because of it. We also don't need a strict on-call schedule since the team is good about responding if they happen to be available and near a computer.

This gives everyone more overall freedom and flexibility.

Leave it up to the hospital. They are best equipped to assess the cost and likelihood of being able to save the person. They also are most responsible for the repercussions in terms of positive/negative publicity and reputation.

And how do you measure social utility? Price is currently the best measure of 'social utility' that we have.

People choose to spend their hard-earned dollars on the products that provide the most utility. Companies spend their hard-earned dollars on the vehicles that allow them to sell the most product.

Coke is enjoyable to many, that's a benefit. Air travel and space travel also cause ongoing environmental harm, whose says the benefits of those outweigh the environmental cost?

Maybe we should ban them as well. All companies "burn" energy, effort, and time to produce profits, that's pretty much the goal of a company.

Experiments have shown that pilot waves would have to travel faster than the speed of light.

My understanding of the experiment is as follows:

Take two entangled photons, beam them up to satellites far away from each other. The satellites have detectors that measure the polarization angle from 0 to 360 degrees. Since entangled photons have opposite polarization you'd expect an inverted V (red line): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#/media/File:B...

Instead, you get the blue line. Which is weird, because it is basically a cosine curve, and implies that the photons are able to determine the relative angle of the detectors. The crazy part is that this curve still holds even if those detectors are very far apart and you complete the experiment before any information about the relative angles of the detectors would have time to pass from one detector to the other at the speed of light. This is what implies that a pilot wave would have to move faster than the speed of light.