kangnkodos

Some of the people are hired into the program right out of college for two years. Most of these people are told that they should look for work elsewhere at the end.

(Other people are just hired and are not in the program.)

It's very competitive, so people work hard to try to make the cut.

In the US, if you make that cut, you have a chance to get promoted to Vice President, then Managing Director, then Partner.

The pay varies depending on your performance and the financial results of your part of the company and the company as a whole that year. Some people think a Managing Director can make about $1M per year, and a Partner can make about $5M per year. But no one really knows, and there are a lot of variables. I saw a NYT article that claimed that one particular Partner earned over $50M in one particular year.

I think when people right out of college are working all those hours, they are fighting for a chance to some day become Partner.

I once read that you can sell software to companies for under $100 or over $100,000, but not for anything in between. If a salesman is required, perhaps to customize the order, you end up on the expensive side. That side also has "contact us for pricing".

The same idea applies when selling other products to companies, with slightly different dollar thresholds.

The real problem is this. How do we determine which speech to punish in 2021? The algorithm is if one person in a non dominant group reports that the words made them feel bad, after the fact, then the words caused actual harm and must be punished. How do we know ahead of time? I don't know. But I do know that it leads us to strange situations where certain words cannot even be quoted, and the even the banning itself cannot be discussed. And the outlawing of discussing the ban cannot be discussed. And so on.

Or hell

If you select Overlays, Bright Objects, Tycho-2 stars, they get labelled as Tycho-2 4564-935-1 and Tycho-2 4564-1031-1. So I guess they are stars?

There are two very similar galaxies here. I've heard of a gravity lens making a star look like it's two. Is it possible a gravity lens is making a galaxy look like two?

https://viewer.legacysurvey.org/?ra=211.0715&dec=81.6327&lay...

That's a good point. But is it better to raise taxes on fossil fuel, or decide to ship oil via train instead of pipeline? I'm not sure what the exact tradeoff would be if train delivered oil was a little more expensive. A little more expensive would lead to a little less usage while the delilvery would pump more pollution into the air. The math might work out out your way or my way.

If I could snap my fingers, I would raise the tax on oil dramatically, and ship oil via pipeline until renewables actually take over and the demand for fossil fuel actually goes down. It seems to me that it would be better for the environment than other alternatives.

So close. The only acceptable solution to them is less consumption. They don't really think through the consequences.

For example, they have cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, but simply do not think about the additional fossil fuel that will be burned transporting that oil via train instead. They dream of less consumption and ignore the actual real world consequences.

Compounding this is Robinhood's execution. Back in March 2020, the whole market plunged, and some Robinhood traders were unable to complete their trades in a timely manner.

Will Robinhood's systems and procedures work flawlessly on Friday? My guess is no. We'll find out.

There's always about the same amount of money bidding above and below the current price. The market maker keeps it in balance, by matching buy bids and sell bids which are close to the middle of the range. This matching process sets the price and makes sure that there is always liquidity.

The price may shoot way up, or plunge, but this process almost always works, so there's almost always liquidity.

If an individual shorts stock at an investment bank, there is a limit to the amount of money the individual can lose.

The investment bank has some type of collateral, usually the rest of your portfolio. When your net worth hits a certain threshold, perhaps $0 net worth of your portfolio, the bet is over. You lost all your money, and you don't end up in debt. In practice, the investment bank will cut you off before you reach this point.

But if you are an investment bank, there is no one controlling you on a daily basis, so you can dip into the negative in theory.

The problems with doing this are:

- Regulators. Once the regulator finds out you're negative, they will shut down your investment bank. Hopefully, they do this before you hit 0, but they may not get it exactly right.

- Counterparties. Other investment banks will refuse to do business with you when they know you are negative, or close to it. Once this happens, it's game over.

So in both cases, individual or investment bank, there is a practical limit on how much you can lose from one short bet. That limit is equal to your net worth.

You could lose any amount of money up to that on one short. It's risky.

There are also ways to limit your losses. You can purchase other contracts to limit your losses. This is kind of like insurance. In general, you are not required to buy this. Some people and institutions do not do this because of the expense. Most institutions structure each deal so there is no way one deal will risk the entire business. Smart people also take steps to make sure one trade does not wipe them out.

But sometimes mistakes happen.

I don't see that's there's anything magical about 100%. In a short squeeze, the shorts buy stock on the open market at a high price and immediately return the stock. Some of this stock will find it's way back onto the open market. The shorter can buy that same stock a second time at a different price and immediately return it.

The real key is daily volume vs. volume shorted.

Shares outstanding - about 70M

Daily volume - about 24M

So if shorts were the only ones buying, it would take about 3 days of normal volume to unwind their positions.

But with the price going up, many others are competing with the short sellers to buy shares right now. So volume will go up and/or it will take longer to unwind.

Recently, the daily volume has gone up to 110M shares. A lot of those shares are being bought and sold more than once per day.

There's nothing magical about 100% of outstanding shares. But it's a huge problem that the shorts outstanding are so high relative to daily volume.

Possible, but extremely unlikely. I heard a lot of the short contracts have an expiration date of Friday. No idea if that's really true or not. Issuing new stock has a long lead time. If it wasn't in the works a month or two ago, it won't happen in the next few days.

It states that Fox News (politics and science) is viewed as biased and opinionated by most editors.

There is no similar warning on The New York Times.

In my opinion, they are both equally biased and opinionated, but in opposite directions, left and right.

So this pair of ratings shows the left bias of Wikipedia, and its editors.

Capital gains tax in California - 13.3%

Capital gains tax in Texas - 0%

If you own stock, you don't pay tax on the stock until you sell them. On the day you sell, you have to pay taxes based on how much the stock went up in value, capital gains. You pay capital gains tax to the federal government, and usually, also to the state you are living in on the day you sell the stock.

For example: If you bought $10 of stock, and then sold it for $110, you have a capital gain of $100. If you live in California on the day you sell the stock, you have to pay California $13.30. If you live in Texas on the day you sell the stock, you don't have to pay Texas anything.

(I simplified a ton of stuff above such as ignoring dividends, deductions, etc. It's not all the official rules and details, just a high level introduction.)

Lending stocks involves two sides, the lender and the borrower.

There are three questions you should ask instead of one:

- Is there any reason for a borrower to borrow stocks other than betting that a stock is going to go down? The answer to that is basically "no". That's the main reason to do it. There are a few weird edge cases which are the exception to this general rule.

- Is there any reason for a lender to loan out stock? If I run a mutual fund, most of my stock is just sitting in a big dusty pile most of the time, doing nothing. I give the impression to my customers that I'm constantly buying and selling, but really, I just buy and hold most of the time. My main problem as a mutual fund manager is not the market going up or down. All of my peers are in the same market. My main problem is figuring out how to get a tiny edge over the other mutual fund managers, so my fund is on the top of the list at the end of the year. If I lend out my stock, my mutual fund might make a quarter of a percent per year extra. That's usually enough to bring my mutual fund up to the top of the list, relative to my peers. Profit.

- What is the benefit to the market of stock lending? As others have pointed out, the exact language you use to describe this transaction can be interpreted in a negative way. My opinion is that markets that allow this type of bet are much more resilient when the market inevitably turns down. Markets that don't allow stock lending tend to have artificially high prices for a long period of time, and inevitably crash hard. So, I think stock lending is a good thing. It evens out the highs and lows better.

I forgot most of the details, but there used to be an obscure play in some European countries where the owner of a stock on a specific date gets a cash payment if they live in the country.

The over simplified version of how to make money on this is person A owns the stock, they lend it to person B who lives in the country. Person B gets the cash payment, returns the stock, and some of the cash payment to A. When B "borrows" a stock, they are the owner of the stock, plus they have a contract to give the stock back to A at some future date. So it's legal.

Last I heard, this was being phased out by one country after another. Each year, there was less and less opportunity to make any money. It might be totally gone now.

This is the best advice here, by far.

If you don't want to live on $40K/year, another option to consider is getting a lower stress job at a lower salary, while withdrawing $40K/year.

This is great news! No leap second in 2020. It won't be a second longer than necessary.

I remember in the magazine section of Tower Records there was a section of paper magazines that came with a CD-ROM. You were mostly paying for the CD-ROM, but the paper magazine helped give you an idea of what was inside before you bought it.

I remember trying to play the content on the CD-ROMs was quite challenging. Different videos needed different video players to be installed. Or the latest version of a particular video player. Some of them needed more memory than my PC had. You had to have a relatively high end PC to play all the content, and I always had a low end PC.

But there was no other way to get that kind of content onto my PC. Download speeds were horrible. Connections were unreliable. Some of the download methods used required me to start over at the beginning when the download failed in the middle after 15 minutes. It was challenging.

Did I mention I had to walk to Tower Records in the snow, uphill both ways?

This article completely ignores China.

In the US, if one pedestrian is killed by a self-driving car, the losses are unacceptable. This is true even if thousands of lives are saved.

In China, the opposite is true. If thousands of lives are saved, and one pedestrian dies, the self-driving car is a success.

China will be the first country to see widespread deployment of self-driving cars for this reason.

"it turns out that when famous scientists die, the subfield in which they worked sees a flowering of new scholars and publications compared to other subfields"

The only logical solution to this situation is to find ways to shorten the life span of famous scientists.

I don't know any five year olds who could read a note like that.

The problem is the economic incentives. The people who have to do extra work are the people providing the data. The people who get the benefit are the people consuming the data.

Is there a way I can make items like this show up on my friend's FB pages?

If it's possible, and lots of people do this, and lots of victims complain, then maybe FB will finally give us a method to eliminate certain ads.

Listen to them, and follow where they lead you.

Is critical race theory pseudoscience?

This is off topic, but I'll bite anyway. Like all broad ideas, there is no one canonical definition of Critical Race Theory that everyone agrees with.

Some serious takes on Critical Race Theory have ideas that explain why science is not always correct.

Some professors who support CRT explain that Storytelling is superior in certain ways, and in certain situations to scientific gathering information.

In other spots, professors claim that since science, reason and mathematics are white Western ideas, they are part of the oppressive system.

I don't really understand those two ideas very well, so I probably misstated them in some form. But if you dive into the details you'll find those ideas or similar ideas.

If you're coming from a mindset where science is the ultimate source of truth, you will be surprised to find that Critical Race Theory says that there are other routes which are better.

I would not say CRT is pseudoscience. I would place it alongside other philosophical theories which support or deny the ideas which form the basis of science.

If you have a lot of users sharing a small number of servers in the cloud, Kubernetes and Docker can help.

If you have one process hitting one Raspberry Pi, they won't help you.

Part of what you need is a plain English, low jargon, directory that briefly explains each piece of technology, and which problem that piece solves. It would need to be opinionated on when to use and when not to use different pieces of technology.

I don't think any directory like that currently exists. If someone built it, I would go to it a lot, and endure lots of ads in order to learn about pieces I don't use yet. If only someone would build this.

Do you mean that people in general should not accept evidence of a problem that is literally right in front of their eyes?

I must have misunderstood what you meant.