1,254 karma · joined February 5, 2014
I read far too many investing sites. Whenever a run-up and crash occurs in some fad stock, the proponents of said stock never seem to lose money. They always seem to be "still in the green". Amazing, really.
The executives in pretty much every corporate scandal, ever, held vast numbers of company shares.
If it's the latter, then there are probably far more creative ways you could help their situation than contributing a few thousand dollars.
In a perfect world, I'd own physical copies of all books. But as an avid reader, ebooks have been a godsend.
Why would you compare quarterly values of seed money to a cumulative total (QE) and expect a correlation? They are completely different series. Try doing a running total for the seed money and the graph will look different. The first and third graphs don't make sense for this reason.
The second graph is better, and you can see there is some correlation. Did you test for lags, or do you assume that QE money would flow instantly into the coffers of institutional investors?
I applaud your effort, but there is more to this analysis than overlaying two graphs. You need to understand the data.
Sure it does. Easy money is easy money. That goes for you and your mortgage at historically low rates, or VCs raising capital. When stimulus is occurring, it's interesting to see where it ends up.
I'm not implying anything nefarious. In fact, I'd say it's working as intended (or at least expected).
You know we landed on the moon, right? I mean, this is cool, but from a sheer "fascinating achievement" standpoint, this is at least a few notches behind that.
Money, titles, who cares? Life satisfaction is much more important than climbing ladders.
Precisely. A 20 year old should go out and get a job and gain some experience in a space and then, maybe, they'll be able to identify and solve a real-world problem.
I had very little sense as a 20 year old. And yet, judging by some of the articles I read here, I was positively worldly compared to some of the kids who are getting big money and starting companies. I have a hard time coming to terms with why seemingly sensible adults think this is a good idea.
I wonder when we'll stop blaming the "banks" for every problem we have, instead of the the real culprit of most of our problems, including a terrible education system and the financial crisis: the government.
I can tell you that I wouldn't expect to stand on my doorstep, facing the men with guns, saying, "ah, ah, ah, I own this land!" and have them turn away.
We do horrible things to other people, no doubt about it. Even worse, this specific moment in history isn't unique. So it goes.
Boy, this bubble doesn't think too highly of the outside world, does it? What an attitude. We're not all idiots.
As someone who has run product before, I can tell you there's always some self-entitled blowhard who feels you owe them something for the time they spend on your product, or their "help". No one is upset when they finally leave (and they always do).
The fact that you have switched away from Google products (and are threatening to leave the last) means your value to Google is likely slightly above zero. But I'm sure the competition are beating down your door for your business.
You realize that the Ford Motor Company has been around for over 100 years, right? Think about that before commenting on their "short term agenda".
Is it required on HN that every article be terse list of peer-reviewed facts?
Simple: the bubble collapses when the acquiring companies no longer grow and succeed.
Facebook et al are doing well, but also have sky-high valuations. Current investors aren't satisfied with current income, they expect massive growth going forward.
Exactly. It's not about Facebook or the authorities mining data for criminal activity. The problem occurs once the authorities have you in their sights, for whatever reason. With reams of private data available and no context, they can (and will) use it to paint any picture of you they need to.
>Statistical education. This is currently optional
The data world is going to be an interesting place in the near future, filled with people running statistical tests they don't truly understand, and drawing spurious conclusions. But, I guess it already works that way in some fields.
Considering you have to go to a Tesla certified dealer, I'd say that is the market price. It's not like there's a shop on every corner.
And, no, replacing undamaged parts is not "orders of magnitude" easier. Of course, it depends on how badly parts are mangled, but that's exaggeration.
Read the threads, they're interesting.
Almost every single car part can be "upgraded", courtesy of the aftermarket. It's not necessarily a worse system.
Precisely. Would Tesla even exist today without government subsidies? Nope. For that matter, neither would GM or Chrysler.
Why are the majors seen as "evil", and Tesla as "good"? I don't understand that narrative whatsoever. I just want good electric cars, and couldn't care less who produces them.
Neither does my iPhone 1. Lets hold off on this comparison until Tesla is still supporting 11 year old vehicles.
Any source for this?
I spend some time on the Tesla forums. There are threads of people get into minor collisions and receiving estimates of 100+ hours of labour to replace some front end parts and paint, along with bills over $20,000[1][2].
So, I don't think it's as simple to replace these parts as you suggest.
[1]http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/26326-Cost-of-...
[2]http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/39325-Owning-a...
The risk is still being off-loaded to massive reinsurance companies.
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Sony is trying to blame others for their security incompetence. The US is posturing with "We don't tolerate this."
Nobody really cares and nobody is going to war because Sony had their emails and some media stolen.
The reason they are centralized dinosaurs is to ensure they are large enough to cover claimants in the case of disasters. They need to be large to mitigate risk. Even as large as they are, they sometimes still fail.
Insurance is pretty basic, unglamourous work. Do you think a system of insurance startups, going bankrupt every time there's a large series of claims, is the way to go?
I agree. Seeing this deck provided some positive re-enforcement of my opinions of oft-fluffy VC-world. Mainly, that it can come down to "show me the numbers".
I'm reminded of an anecdote from the first season of The Apprentice. An early team task was to sell as much Donald Trump branded bottled water as possible. The team sat down and put together a presentation, complete with stories on the gathering location, filtering process, bottling procedures, and on and on. After the tale was spun, they headed to a nightclub to try for some sales. They sit down with the bar owner and get into their spiel. After about two minutes the proprietor cuts them off and says, "We're talking about bottled water here. Tell me the price and how much you can supply."
My point is that it's nice to see VCs say "show me that the numbers work, nothing more." That said, Mr. Horowitz, in the press release, was quick to point out that this was as much an investment in the founders as anything.
But that's all it is; a different allocation of wealth. If you happen to live in that community, great.
The question becomes: why should I care about your local community as opposed to some other local community, or even the global community, that stands to benefit from getting more for less?
This is my use-case. For my small corner of the world, Amazon has been a boon to used-book stores (even regional chains), as it is now easier to see what I'm buying.