neilknowsbest

Microsoft has an amusingly academic take on this idea here (PDF):

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

Is this the guy who covered Hunts Point in the Bronx? I remember seeing his pictures, feels like a long time ago now.

I found a Flickr album here [0]. I also vaguely recall a long form article, talking about a few different people's lives, but I can't seem to find that one.

[0] - https://www.flickr.com/photos/arnade/albums/7215762646801687...

> $

It is observed that sovereign borrowers that inflate their way out of debt find their ability to borrow in the local currency reduced. They may still be able to borrow USD, though. Argentina in particular comes to mind, with something around 50% of total government debt denominated in USD [0]. Even Russia appears to have $40B in USD or EUR debt (private borrowers in Russia have another $100B or so) [1]. Of course, they can still outright renege on this USD denominated debt but it removes the option of inflating it away.

[0] - https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2021/august/dollar... [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/business/russia-debt-bond...

As I understand it, most US refiners in the gulf region are tuned for heavier/sourer crudes than is produced domestically. I'm not entirely sure why that is (maybe a historical artifact due to prevalence of those grades in Latin America?), but the result is that we generally want to import crudes for refining.

Which is to say: the light/sweet crudes produced domestically are not the ideal feedstocks for our refiners, so restricting exports of those wouldn't necessarily increase supply of refined products.

As an aside, the web page for this story shows pictures of a study participant seated in front of a big monitor displaying their vitals. I don't know much about study design, but I feel like that would confound results.

FWIW I think Page and Brin have retained voting control of the company through some differentiated class of common shares. So Sundar is probably more interested in pleasing them than some Wall Street analysts.

Can you share anything specific about changes to this land policy? I have no knowledge of how this sort of leasing arrangement works in China or elsewhere (Singapore, etc).

Regarding the relevance of the example expenses for Disney:

Disney's 2019 Annual Report [0] shows total revenues of $26B for their Parks, Experiences and Products segment. Within that, revenues for admissions are $7.5B, merchandise/food/beverage $6B, resorts/vacations $6B, and some miscellaneous licensing $6.5B.

An industry or market research company reports [1] visitation in 2019 of 155MM. I'm assuming this is somewhat accurate.

Admissions revenues per visitor are around $50, compared to a cost of $150 or so quoted in the article; TFA might be overpaying for tickets. The resorts/vacations (I assume this means hotels) revenue is $40 per visitor or $160 for a family of 4 for 1 night. This, combined with the prevalence of <$200/night hotels near Disneyland [2] suggests to me that not all visitors are staying in the Disney hotels, and the ones who aren't may be paying less than the $450 from TFA.

All this to say that the current costs for Disney are likely lower than what TFA suggests, unclear by how much.

[0] - https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2020/01/2019-An...

[1] - https://www.teaconnect.org/images/files/TEA_369_258927_20071...

[2] - https://www.google.com/maps/search/Hotels/@33.8029354,-117.9...

They might be raising the distinction between "rain forest" and "jungle".

As I understand it, A rain forest is a tropical forest characterized by a dense canopy that blocks most sunlight from reaching the floor; it has relatively little undergrowth.

A jungle is a tropical forest without a dense canopy, and so has heavy undergrowth. This frequently exists on the edges of a rain forest or in other areas where storms, etc prevent the growth of a dense canopy.

Maybe "jungle" does not apply to much of this land in Colombia?

I believe the parent here is making a distinction between "capital" and "money"; "money" being a claim against real physical "capital".

When a pile of "capital" is destroyed (i.e. a bushel of wheat spoils, or a factory burns to the ground, or the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are somehow lost forever) then this is a loss to society in general and to the owner of that "capital" in particular. If a pile of "money" is destroyed (i.e. Pablo Escobar burns $2MM in currency, private key to crypto wallet is lost) there is no corresponding loss of real physical "capital". There is simply a reduction in aggregate outstanding claims against the unchanged real physical "capital". So the unaffected holders of the other claims see their purchasing power increase, i.e. they no longer have to outbid the person whose "money" was destroyed, they have now "cut out" the loser from claims against "capital".

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they understand about what they imagine they can design” -- Hayek

I can't speak to what the parent comment might have been referencing, but the CDC estimates 120MM infections through May 2021.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

For what it's worth, ERCOT is not subject to FERC regulation, so order 841 doesn't apply to ERCOT.

One issue I've come across is that the query optimizer in Clickhouse does not propagate `where` clauses through a join. My terminology might be wrong, so consider this example:

select * from a inner join b using (id) where b.foo = 'bar'

Clickhouse will not evaluate `foo = 'bar'` before performing the join, so you might wind up with a join that produces a large intermediate result before the filtering happens. Postgres (probably other databases) will optimize this for you. To force Clickhouse to filter first, you would need to write something like

select * from a inner join ( select * from b where foo = 'bar' ) b using (id)

Maybe not a strict limitation, but the workaround is a bit janky.