Yes, but on a $ basis rather than a % basis.
1,365 karma · joined June 5, 2009
The net effect is that fund A sees increased returns and fund B sees decreased returns.
On a completely unrelated note, if I were interested in creating a fund that appeared to have market beating returns for decades and I wasn't concerned about the legal consequences, here's one way I might do it:
I would create fund A and B and seed them with some initial capital. For fund A, I would create a machine learning model that took in lots of opaque parameters and hire a team of very smart mathematicians and computer scientists to optimize this model to perform profitable trades. In order to easily generate alpha, I would subtlety feed in some parameters that were correlated to the future market moving actions of fund B. Since I also run fund B, I uniquely have this information.
I would use the performance of fund A to woo outside investors into investing their money into fund B. In order to prevent fund A from overtaking fund B in asset value and thus diminishing the value of the subtle signals, I would close the fund to the public when it got sufficiently large and periodically distribute its assets to its investors.
In order to avoid any of my employees from eventually figuring out what's going on and reporting me, I'd incentivize them to avoid looking too closely by requiring that they invest a large part of their income into the fund with a long vesting date. I'd also require them to sign a long term non-compete so that they cannot work anywhere else in the financial industry if they leave.
The average monthly energy consumption per capita in the U.S. is about 1000 kWh[1], so in order to double that with electric cars every individual would need to drive an average of 110 miles per day.
[1] https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/energy-consumption.ph...
The Bitcoin wiki has a lot more information, although it can be hard to navigate: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
For some more modernish innovations in Blockchain tech in general, I would also recommend the Ethereum white paper: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper. Ethereum re-imagines the Bitcoin protocol with a turing complete virtual machine that runs on the chain itself.
As ignaloidas explained in another comment though, this doesn't include the Lightning Network which is where most everyday transactions would occur.
The 30k number that the website gives in the beginning is talking about the number of transactions that have not yet made it into a block but are currently being replicated among nodes in the network. Each transaction includes a bounty to be paid to the miner that includes it in a block. Most of these 30k pending transactions have a low fee and are usually ignored by most miners, but may eventually make it into one when an altruistic miner manages to mine a block, or when a greedy miner has no better options. If they don't make it into a block relatively soon, nodes will stop replicating them.
I seem to remember that proof-of-stake has been coming 'next year' for about 3 years now.
They've been doing that for years already: https://www.thestreet.com/story/13078117/1/returnaholics-bew...
I think the point is that this creates a lot of incentive for the bank to hide the risks that they wouldn't otherwise have. Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't incentive them to prioritize things that might help them measure the risk better, so those sorts of improvements never get made and it just deteriorates over time.
Ya, that's pretty much what I was getting at.
May 2017
Some people think of it as being able to drive anywhere at any time in any condition. This is unlikely to ever happen before AGI. What matters in Tesla's case is more likely being able to drive in some small number of places in specific circumstances without a physical driver in the vehicle (but possibly a remote one to handle unusual circumstances).
Now I don't think Tesla is going to even get to that in 3 years, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Waymo there.
Yes, there are a few ways to do it.
>As in someone promising you to buy stock X at price Y at future date Z? So when the stock dips, you make money.
This would be either a put option or a future (depending on whether you have the option or the obligation to sell it on date Z), but it carries the risk that the market will not lower the price prior to date Z. Put options also aren't available at the same time as IPO, I believe LYFT puts won't be available until late next week.
You can also short the stock, which is simply borrowing shares from someone else, selling them, then buying back the shares at a hopefully lower price to repay the loan at a later date. The advantage is that you don't have to specify a certain date, but you may be forced to pay back the loan earlier than you'd like if the price increases beyond your collateral or more people want to borrow the stock than lend it.
>If yes, and this is such a clear cut case
The reality is that this isn't actually such a clear cut case. There are many people with billions of dollars at their disposal betting both ways. Some will be right, some will be wrong. The price they (and everyone else) have agreed to bet against each other with will be the market price.
Controlling itself doesn't have to mean population control. It just has to mean taking care of our environment in a sustainable way. The number of people we have been able to support in a sustainable way has increased by several orders of magnitude over the past tens of thousands of years and I don't see a compelling reason that trend needs to stop. Climate change isn't tied to population, it's tied to greenhouse gas emissions. We already have the technology demonstrating that we don't need to emit greenhouse gasses.
Probably the sun and small scale fusion for at least the next thousand years or so. Eventually other stars/large scale fusion/some type of energy production we haven't discovered yet.
>and space
There is enormous amounts of room left on earth. Everyone on earth could have an acre of land to themselves with 10x the current population, and that completely ignores multi-level construction (either above or below the surface). But long term there is a lot of space outside of earth.
Wouldn't you expect a carbon tax to be similar in price to the cost to get the carbon back out of the air?
CO2 released per barrel of oil (when converted to various fuels and burned) appears to be around 300-450 kg [1][2], but we can round up to 500 kg to be conservative and make the math easier.
The cost to take it back out of the air appears to run between $30-$200/tonne depending on how you do it [3][4][5]. I think it's worth speculating that this cost is likely to drop precipitously as the demand and scale at which we need to do it increases, but we can very conservatively stick with $200/tonne for now.
Crude oil is at about $59/barrel today. $200 * 0.5 tonnes = $100. So with the most conservative estimates, it wouldn't quite triple the cost.
[1] https://pyrolysium.org/how-much-co2-produced-by-burning-one-...
[2] http://numero57.net/2008/03/20/carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-...
[3] https://www.c2es.org/document/the-cost-of-u-s-forest-based-c...
[4] https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/19/carbon-capture-expensiv...
Do you have a source for that? I have somewhat suspected that was the case based on some other things I've heard, but I have been unable to find any real sources on it.