metaphor

Thanks for all that.

Incidentally ranked #1091 for 2021; down 263 YoY from #828.

Playing devil's advocate, I'm honestly not sure how I'd behave if I dropped a $10 million personal fortune[1] (1986 dollars; $27.2 million buying power today) for controlling stake in a venture and execution wasn't going as I had envisioned. Being a "jerk" might strike me as an acceptable trade-off if that meant it got targeted impediments out of the way without irreparable damage to the whole.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.co...

Still not quite making the link between "feudal lord" and "pettiness" (both seem equally subjective/vague).

By "total control", do you mean well beyond the boundaries of labor law? In my mind, I'm admittedly inclined to interpret this color as a consequence of the music stopping at an unprofitable creative house with an internal culture of unabashed freedom on someone else's dime.

Maybe I just need to read the books mentioned by the parent sometime.

Certainly not, presuming it doesn't escalate to the level of trademark/service mark infringement (to be fair, IANAL). Just a risk consideration...your product, your call.

But I think there's value in at least recognizing that the namespace is quite crowded given the collisions that two interweb randoms were able to identify in short order.

> At Pixar, he behaved like a feudal lord because he pretty much owned the place and they relied on his money to keep the lights on.

How do you mean by "behaved like a feudal lord"?

Admittedly not read up on Jobs (sacrilege in this venue, I know), so I'm struggling to understand why he who pays the piper calls the tune is somehow objectionable.

This was just the first part[1] of a bigger three-part series[2][3].

[1] https://archive.is/RyfXe

[2] https://archive.is/f8yPV

[3] https://archive.is/59v6W

> Zero information on how it all worked apart from the fact that they were recruited from Montenegro.

You obviously didn't have the attention span to make it to the 9-minute mark[1], where suspect MSC ships are called out by name, and the June 2019 Philly bust of MSC Gayane is explained in detail, method and all.

[1] https://youtu.be/PpiOLdnAGBw?t=540

This[1] and this[2] also come to mind.

[1] https://www.spglobal.com/engineering/en/products/haystack-go...

[2] https://www.plume.com/serviceproviders/platform/haystack/

Thanks for the cite...unfortunate the referenced report by Reach Advisors wasn't linked, but the logic makes sense.

> Unmarried, childless women earn significantly more than unmarried, childless men on average.

Got a cite for this assertion?

Recommend picking up a copy of Central Banking 101[1] for a gentle introduction; the basic mechanics of fractional reserve banking are explained in Chapter 2.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Central-Banking-101-Joseph-Wang/dp/09...

From the article:

> Some companies include statements on labels that say a food "may contain" a certain product or that the food is "produced in a facility" that also uses certain allergens. However, such statements are voluntary, not required, according to the FDA, and they do not absolve the company of requirements to prevent cross-contamination.

Also worth mentioning the related scandal[1] of JEA's former CEO and CFO attempting to sneak in a "Long-Term Incentive Performance Unit Plan" that would have paid out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as bonuses to executives if "a recapitalization event (including a sale of JEA) occurred, meaning payouts would have been funded by net proceeds to the COJ from the sale of JEA."

Entirely unsurprising who the top private bidder was[2].

[1] https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/03/07/for...

[2] https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/08/26/nex...

Agreed.

While reading the thread, a red flag[1] was immediately raised in my mind when:

> We couldn't reproduce it, but we did come up with a theory for why it was happening.

...going right into mechanical subsystem redesign. Surely a cursory review would have challenged such a reactionary proposal: What meaningful steps were taken to falsify the prevailing theory?

There's something implied about discipline when this vacant QA Tester Hardware/Software engineering position description[2] bundles verification/validation test roles on the design/development/production/field support fronts with the following caveat:

> Initially, you'll be the only QA engineer and will perform active testing of new product releases in our lab and in the field at construction sites.

Also, non-rhetorical question: Selenium for industrial hardware test automation...is that really a thing in the wild?

[1] https://twitter.com/tessalau/status/1604018887603138561

[2] https://boards.greenhouse.io/dustyrobotics/jobs/5373908003

> It's cycle. It always has been.

No, it hasn't always been; you're conflating historically consistent and reasonable cycles with the speculative manias that have occurred over the past two decades. Make no mistake: we are not in a normal cycle.

Prior to these bubbles, the next closest historical US analog over a century would have been the rebuilding that occurred after WWII, when home prices reverted back to inflation-adjusted fair value after the housing market was completely hammered by the onset of the Great Depression---a time when ballon payment mortgages were the norm, and a crisis that gave rise to the financial innovation of fixed-rate mortgages as the de facto US standard circa 1930s. This spike in home prices was largely attributable to a bona fide housing shortage (think Baby Boomers)...yet no speculative mania and no bubble arose over those decades.

To get a sense for just how ridiculous today's real estate market has become, you need to consider the situation in real (inflation-adjusted) terms[1]. No amount of contrived marketing can quantitatively justify today's egregious bubble home prices, whether it's relative to building costs (!!), population growth, or decreasing interest rates as shown in the graph, or relative to other meaningful metrics that aren't shown like increasing real disposable income or tax-advantaged benefits of the asset class.

For reference, Robert Shiller covers this topic well in his book Irrational Exuberance[2].

On a similar note to your parent post, the UK is looking quite dire as well. Interest rates aren't as high (yet), and although both countries have a strong bias towards adjustable-rate mortgages, I suspect the key difference is in the demographic of bag holders: for the UK, I'm specifically looking at fixed-income pensioners. When the first wave of adjustments kick in next year, it's going to break a lot of people with little to no financial alternative.

[1] http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ShillerHPI.jpg

[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691173125/

Nominal terms may not be the best way to look at it.

Here's a more intuitive visualization[1] of just how ridiculous the situation is.

The at-a-glance takeaway is that those who bought anytime from 2021 and today are, on average, almost certainly holding an illiquid bag that's even more overvalued than the inflation-adjusted peak of the housing bubble leading into the GFC.

The original Black Knight press release[2] cited by the article highlights:

> Of all homes purchased with a mortgage in 2022, 8% are now at least marginally underwater and nearly 40% have less than 10% equity stakes in their home, a situation most concentrated among FHA/VA loans

> More than 25% of 2022 FHA/VA purchase mortgage holders have now dipped into negative equity, with 80% having less than 10% equity

In other words, low income and veteran home buyers. What I'd like to know is what percentage of these homes were financed with adjustable-rate mortgages...based on the implied trend, those people are liable to be sucking hind tit sooner than later.

As for those with fixed-rate mortgages that are able to continue making payments, being underwater just means less future business for Black Knight...soon to be ICE's problem if/when the acquisition closes next year.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kYEb

[2] https://www.blackknightinc.com/black-knights-october-2022-mo...

The language is with respect to investment time horizons for each given risk consideration, i.e. tactically underweight due to the "recession foretold" not being fully priced in yet, but strategically modest overweight based on estimate that "the overall return of stocks will be greater than fixed-income assets over the coming decade" in the face of stickier inflation.

The PDF playbook is structured to make this abundantly clear.

...which is atypically large even for the Army because of the sheer number of tenants it now supports after 2005 BRAC consolidation, including Pope AFB, and yet still relatively small land-wise compared to China Lake supporting ~10% the personnel.

I'm not denying that military bases aren't large---although I'd be willing to argue that the land is used quite inefficiently---but trying to pass the Navy's single largest weapons test range, or the Army's consolidation of 3 bases into 1 as somehow representative of the median is absurd.

To reference China Lake's land use as if it were anything remotely close to the median military installation is outright absurd and disingenuous at best.

Maybe it's just me, but I rather disliked the pubescent, sensationalized tone of this opinion piece.

Previous discussion[1][2] of Dylan Patel's coverage a while back.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33419138 (6 days ago, 179 comments)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33371725 (10 days ago, 10 comments)

This was and still is the best guidance[1] I ever indirectly received in uni. I hope it continues to help others.

[1] https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.phd.html

> ...which would indicate they make those there and have no issues fulfilling orders currently.

Based on FY22 total net sales[1], the entire Mac category accounted for 10.2%, whereas iPhone category accounted for 52.1%.

In other words, if iPhone production volume were reduced by just -10% of FY22 levels going into the holidays, that would be equivalent to half of Mac revenue!

The press release was making forward-looking statements so you may be correct, but this thought experiment suggests that even if they were experiencing Mac throughput issues, it's almost irrelevant if the same facility is being shared with iPhone production.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193220...

I'm not fighting. I'm merely attempting to dispell naive, unsupported optimism to the benefit of my fellow Intel bulls who are too drunk on yesterday's Kool-Aid to interpret what the cryptic financial writing on the walls have been warning for several years now.

What's with the delusional arrogance of continuing to lean into deprecated past performance when data on present outcomes and future outlook is readily accessible? No one making informed, meaningful decisions today gives a shit about last year's Intel and AMD!

From Intel's latest Q3 press release[1], management is guiding towards $63-64B revenue to close FY22, representing -20% decline YoY.

In contrast, from AMD's latest Q3 press release[2], management is guiding towards $23.2-23.8B revenue to close FY22, representing +43% growth YoY.

Underneath the hood, Intel's two biggest segments by huge margin are going down faster than a whore spreading herpes:

- Client Computing segment revenue is down -17.0% QoQ, -18.5% YoY; segment operating income is down -53.9% QoQ, -53.3% YoY.

- Datacenter and AI segment revenue is down -27.2% QoQ, -16.3% YoY; segment operating income is down -99.3% QoQ, -68.5% YoY.

- This quarter, Intel spun off their Mobileye segment and is expected to hold ~94% of MBLY common stock upon IPO. For Q3, this segment's revenue was up +38.0% QoQ, +26.6% YoY; segment operating income was up +11.8% QoQ, +11.4% YoY...we won't be seeing this segment soften Intel's top line decline moving forward.

- Management has made it abundantly clear that they're trying to cauterize deep operating wounds now and over the next few years: "The company is focused on driving $3 billion in cost reductions in 2023, growing to $8 billion to $10 billion in annualized cost reductions and efficiency gains by the end of 2025."

- Next year, Intel will burn ~$5.4B acquiring Tower Semi to advance their IDM 2.0 vision[3]. Prevailing macroeconomic headwinds today and throughout at least the end of next year strongly suggests this will weigh a lot more unfavorably on Intel's balance sheet moving forward given the implied cost of capital went from cheap in February 2022 when the acquisition intent was announced to sky-fucking-high today trending to the moon based on what the futures market has already priced in.

[1] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1586/...

[2] https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1098/am...

[3] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1527/...

> They can in the Fab sector.

I'm bullish on Intel's IDM 2.0 vision in the later stages of a 10-year horizon, but as of today and for at least the next few years, this assertion is unsubstantiated bullshit.

According to their latest Q3 10-Q filing[1], Intel Foundry Services segment accounts for $576M revenue and -$289M operating losses YTD.

In contrast, Globalfoundries' last relevant 6-K filing[2] reported $3.933B revenue and $501M operating profit YTD...and oh by the way, GFS Q3 earnings call isn't until next week Tuesday, so these numbers reflect only 6 months of the current fiscal year.

The reality these numbers support is that Intel's (bleeding) cash cow is in making and selling their own chips, not fabbing other companies' designs.

Furthermore, the only named portfolio segment that's currently doing worse that Intel Foundry Services is Accelerated Computing Systems and Graphics, which has hemorrhaged -$1.275B in operating losses YTD. Even Mobileye segment generated 2.3x more revenue than Intel Foundry Services segment YTD, and is profitable despite being acquired only 5 years ago.

To be fair, AMD intentionally divested their legacy foundry capabilities a decade ago; conflating GFS with AMD in the foundry space is logically indefensible, and there's meaningful underlying reasons why AMD pivoted to fabless.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632200...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1709048/0001...