pyoung

> What kind of margin pays to have someone walk door to door?

If I had to guess, the door-to-door folks are probably lead gen companies that sell leads to solar installers. The economics work out largely because solar installations are such a big ticket item that good leads can demand a nice sum. As a thought exercise, Amazon will pay in the range of 5% to affiliates. If you buy a $100 pair of shoes on Amazon, that will net the affiliate $5. If a solar lead gen gets the same rate, then a single $30k system will earn them $1500. So that salesman only needs to sell a few systems per month to cover salary. Hence the door-to-door.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the residential solar market is pretty cutthroat. Quite a few companies have recently filed for bankruptcy. Part of the reason lead gen and marketing costs are so high is because these companies are fighting tooth and nail for customers. I am pretty sure most installers would love to cut back on that spending, but without it their business would collapse.

That website exists, to some degree: https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

I think their financials are already fairly intertwined, to the point where if one fails, they all fail[1]. Part of the outrage over the SolarCity purchase was that people were worried that Musk was just trying to bail out SolarCity (solar was and still is going through a bit of a downturn).

[1] https://electrek.co/2016/03/22/elon-musk-spacex-solar-bonds-...

This seems like the most plausible explanation. I recently read an article[1] regarding Ukraine's struggle against Russian propaganda.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2017/08/21/544952989/rough-translation-wh...

From my understanding, a lot of it has to do with a combination of the subsidies that are being offered and with the rapid increase in range of newer models.

For example, my buddy in Boulder, CO bought a brand new Nissan Leaf for ~$12k (MSRp ~$30k). In addition to the state/federal credits, the local utility was offering $12k rebates or something like that.

Combine that with the fact that some of the early models had really low range (I think the early Leafs were below 80 miles) and I could see why the used market is behaving the way it is.

For what it's worth, as a fellow non-electric bike commuter, plenty of non-electric bike commuters irk me. Whether it's jumping in front of me while I am waiting at a light, only to be significantly slower than me when the light changes. Or passing at speed on the right hand side. Or jamming up a 4-way intersection by blasting through while others are waiting. In general, some people tend to turn into assholes when they are commuting, regardless of what form of transportation they are using. If someone is using an electric bike, and they are being courteous to other road users then there really isn't any problem. And as far as I am concerned, they really aren't that different than the lycra clad strava jockeys that are already racing all over the place, with the exception that electric bike users are probably MORE likely to obey the rules of the road because it is easier for them to get up to speed after stopping.

If Tesla was actively working to prop up our fossil fuel based electricity grid, than I think this would be a fair argument. But they are not. Instead they are actively engaged in the solar+storage market, and they have stated multiple times that they believe the grid can be 100% renewable.

In the short term, yes, folks will need to rely on existing fossil fuel technologies to build factories, transport materials, and power the grid. That is because there is no other economically viable option. To expect the entire clean energy industry to bootstrap itself only using clean energy is a fallacy. In 20-30 years when the grid is more green and clean transportation is widely available, then arguments like these would be valid.

There is no guarantee that battery costs will come down naturally. The point of the subsidy is to help drive demand long enough so that the market forces have time to work on bringing those costs down. And even then, there is no guarantee that this will work. But batteries are a critical technology for many reasons (particularly the grid), so it makes sense to target this technology specifically. Look at what the CSI program did to CA's solar industry for an example of how fast a well planned incentive program can bootstrap an industry.

Also, CA already has a cap and trade program (a bill just passed to extend the program another 10 years). It has been around since 2012.

There is a ton of important work that needs to be done that gets the short shrift in our society. Taking care of our elderly and our children, teaching, cleaning up and looking after the environment, community service. There is a massive gap between the activities that our economy incentivizes and what is good for the health and happiness of our communities. Basic income doesn't have to involve useless hole digging, there is plenty of work out there that would be both useful and rewarding.

That is my understanding as well. These aren't your typical international investments, the goal is to get the money out of China entirely.

Worth noting, China is also trying to limit international investments (in addition to capital flight mentioned above) to try and encourage domestic investments[1]. If I had to pick one sign that there might be trouble ahead, it would be this one. It's one thing to try and clamp down on people dodging capital controls, but it's another thing entirely to try and limit international investments that would broaden China's economic footprint.

And one final thought. While there are some troubling signs, no major modern economy is or has been as tightly controlled as China's. So I don't think anyone really knows how this will play out. It's quite possible that they thread the needle and keep everything rolling smoothly. And as others mentioned in this thread, there are plenty of examples in history where massive infrastructure investments caused some big financial pain/failures in the short term, only to result in positive long term impacts. It's quite possible that China is playing the long game here, ready to suffer some short term pain, but looking 20-30 years down the road. As their economy matures, infrastructure projects will get more expensive (see the US for example), so might as well overbuild now.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/26/china-to-re...

I am no expert, but my rough understanding is that China has 'trapped' itself in a tricky situation by relying on its export economy and on debt/investments to stimulate growth. Ideally, a 'healthy' economy is balanced between exports, local consumption, and debt/investment. But China has weak local consumption due to their high saving rates and their capital outflows. This means they have had to rely on the other two (debt, exports) to grow the economy. High debt normally isn't an issue because a healthy economy can always 'grow out of it' (i.e. over time inflation will make it more manageable). But because China is export driven, if their currency rises too much, that part of their economy will crash (because their exports get more expensive). Had they had more local consumption, the impact would be smaller because the stronger currency would mean increased buying power for local consumers. But because local consumption is weak, they have to hope that growth in exports outpaces growth in debt (which recently hasn't been the case).

The big question mark, is how actively the government will intervene if things go south. In a normal market, too much debt results in bankruptcies. This results in people losing money (all of those savers who have been socking their money away in banks). But a lot of institutions in China are state owned, so it's possible that they could prop up these institutions. No one really knows what that would look like, or how it would impact the economy, but the assumption is you will have a lot of zombie companies that only exist because the government is making good on their debt obligations.

I am nowhere near those levels, but if you are in the low 7's you are probably still fine investing in index funds. However, there are probably a few investment options that would start making sense:

1. Real estate investments can be very attractive due to access to cheap financing and tax benefits. Obviously there is risk (avoid those bubbles), but if you play it smart and find cash flow positive rental properties, you will probably net much better returns than the stock market.

2. As you get higher on the wealth ladder, finding tax savings starts to show good ROI. So you might want to hire an advisor or an accountant to help with that.

3. The standard advice for us normal folk is to have ~6 months of rainy day funds in a savings account. If you are in the 7 figures, you might want to map out some worst case scenarios to get a sense of how much risk tolerance you have and what you would need to 'survive' those bad scenarios. If I had moderate wealth, I would probably make sure I had a few years worth of living expenses stashed away somewhere. Also, I would probably have a nice mix of bonds, gold and other safe(ish) assets. This leads into #4

4. While I might keep a higher % in safer assets than I do now, I would probably try and balance that with some more riskier assets. At higher levels of wealth you have access to a much wider array of investment opportunities (lookup 'accredited investor'). For the most part, these investment classes suffer the same issues as actively managed funds (generally perform worse than the market, after fees. Look up 'average VC, PE, and hedge fund returns'). But the one advantage here is that, unlike index funds, you also have a (small) chance of hitting astronomical returns (ex: angel investor in a unicorn). So it could make sense to allocate a small portion of your portfolio to these types of investments. As mentioned, the average expected outcome is probably worse than just investing in index funds, but an index fund will never return 1000x where as there is a small chance that an angel investment might.

So the tldr is that there is nothing wrong with index funds, especially at the low 7's (and probably even into the 8's). But most people at those levels have much more complicated financial lives (own a business, have a bunch of real estate investments, need to worry about inheritances, etc..) that the standard advice about index funds becomes less suitable. For example, Warren Buffet, the champion of index funds, probably has the vast majority of his wealth locked up in BRK.

That is crazy. I have been keeping my eye on the electric motorcycle/scooter market as well as on electric bicycles thinking that that could be a good way to support/enter the electric market. But good electric motorcycles are retailing at $15k+ and good electric bicycles can easily push into the $5k range. While I don't think I can personally benefit from a used Leaf (commute to work via bike, and use my SO's car for occasional weekend trips where range would be an issue), seems like at $7k it would be an absolute steal as a commuter car for a 2 car household, especially when you take into account savings on fuel. Battery concerns are certainly warranted, but used ICE cars in the $7k range aren't exactly risk free either.

Oh wow! I am only mildly familiar with them (mostly been hearing about how they have been trying to enter the US market). I didn't realize they crowdfunded. But yeah, this is a really good example of why microbreweries could be a good niche for crowdfunding. Operating your own brewpubs is a really good business because of the markup, but the challenge is in the expansion phase.

Also, looks like they are offering another round of equity in the US[1]. I was under the impression that crowdfunding was limited to $1M, but looks like they are raising $50M under 'Regulation A+'. Not sure what that is.

[1]https://www.bankroll.ventures/deal/brewdog/

Oh, I am in no way claiming this isn't a risky investment. But I have seen a trend in the microbrew market where a lot of these failures[1] tend to occur as they try to expand. The general pattern is they load up on debt to fund expansion, but hitting even a few bumps during that time (slump in sales, construction delays) can send things into a tailspin. As mentioned in the previous post, the economics of these taprooms are really good (500-600% markup, costs about $1 to make a pint, which they then sell for $5-$7), so microbreweries don't quite face the same pain points that restaurants do (super thin margins). But expanding operations tends to be a huge pain point, because unlike a restaurant, you need to build out the new brewhouse, and then there is a lead time before your brewhouse is pumping out beers (the more sought after beers these days require a decent amount of fermentation/aging). So if you took out a risky loan to finance the expansion, as you can imagine, it only takes a few small things to go south before the whole operation tanks. But if you finance the expansion using equity, you would probably have a lot more flexibility as you don't have to worry about default.

My thought is that crowdfunding could be a good financing option for someone like this[2]. They have already established themselves, but are trying to get to the next stage. If I was local beer fan, I might support them on kickstarter, but if they offered a crowdfunding option, perhaps with some perks like an annual tasting, than I would probably be a lot more enthused. Also keep in mind, that a lot of specialty microbreweries already have 'fan clubs' that cost a few hundred dollars a year. In return, you get access to limited releases. It seems like a creating a 'lifetime fan club' for a few thousand dollars would be doable, with the added bonus that the supporter gets some equity.

[1]http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/San-Francisco-s-popular-M... [2]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/findlaybrewing/findlay-...

I can see this working for a few niche markets that fall in between the gaps of kickstarter and VC. One market that immediately comes to mind is microbreweries. Small to midsize microbreweries have pretty good margins because they are usually selling their beer directly out of their taproom (as opposed to distributing their product, which results in a few other people taking a cut of your sales). But expanding to the next size up can be fairly capital intensive (relative to the size of the business) and there are not a lot of ways to finance that. My guess is it's a lot of friends and family money, or 'scraping the barrels' for cash in the company. Some breweries have managed it through kickstarter. But kickstarter seems to work better for product focused companies with a pre-order dynamic.

The advantage of crowdfunding would be that you can offer some upside to your supporters (M&A[1] or maybe dividends?). Assuming you are already established and are trying to take it to the next level, you can generate support for your crowdfunding campaign by advertising to your existing clientele. They already have a connection to the business and that can also result in creating a small army of brand ambassadors.

There are probably a few other niche businesses out there that could follow this playbook. Use existing local support/community to help fund expansion. One possible hang up is that there would need to be a path to an exit or some type of return. With the microbrewery market, as mentioned below, M&A is happening, but for other markets that don't have that, I would be interested to know if dividends are a possibility.

[1] There is a decent amount of M&A activity going on as the major beer companies try to maintain market share as the micros take over.

Energy: It's getting cheaper and cheaper thanks to competing technologies. California's wholesale rate went negative (due to solar) for the first time ever in April. If you are unemployed and on UBI, you have more freedom to to take advantage of time-of-use rates. Or better yet, hook up some cheap solar panels and some lead-acid batteries and make your own energy.

Time: If you are unemployed and on UBI, you have more free time. If prices spike for food, then you can always grow your own. If prices spike for gasoline, then ride a bike.

Space: With UBI, you no longer need to cram into a handful of high-growth economic areas. You can move to cheaper areas, grow your own food, and ride a bike everywhere. People with a lot of free time, and not a lot of money, will be a lot more price sensitive than in our current environment (where time = money). If prices rise due to inflation, they will either do without, or find/create a substitute.

But if we are demand constrained as opposed to supply constrained for most consumer goods, than you will see an increase in 'Q', not 'P'.

Traditional education is supply limited. But the internet is rapidly changing things. As an example, Udacity and Coursera are both offering various forms of certificates.

I could see a future where people use UBI to bootstrap an education. Move to a low cost of living area, take some online courses and work on some projects. Once they have built up a small portfolio, attempt to re-enter the workforce etc...

They have a link to sunroof below their estimate. Not sure what happens if you aren't covered by sunroof, but their are a ton of solar estimation tools out there that will give you a rough idea of your potential just based on lat/lon.

They are using Google's Project Sunroof[1] to do the modeling. The tool uses satellite images of your roof to create the estimates, and accounts for orientation, shading from trees, etc...

[1] https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

That is a good point. I did a quick internet search, and it looks like the max number of years for cliff vestings is now 3 years, which for most people is fairly reasonable. For gradual vesting, it looks like they can spread it out over 6 years, which seems a bit much, but at least you are vesting some of it over time.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employ...

Does your company offer a 401k matching program? If so, that is basically an instant 100% return. If they are not matching, then you might be right, but if their is a match on the table, it probably makes sense to max that out.

But he played ball for 20 years. I think average number of assists per game is a better stat here, where he was ranked 136th according to this link [1].

[1] http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_per_g_career...

Single family homes in SF are exempt from rent control.

> I work for your company, you pay me X salary.

And if I don't work for your company, and I can't find other work, I starve. It's hardly win-win if one side of the transaction faces much more dire consequences if the negotiations fail.

Maybe electric bikes and mopeds/scooters? Space seems to be a bigger issue for those than cars. And in the early days (and in some cases today) lead acid batteries were used. Lead acid had similar weight issues, but are much worse in terms of size and power, so seems like if folks were able to make that work, then a bike or scooter with this solid state battery could work.

I went on amazon to look at some product weights. There is an e-bike battery that weighs 6.5 lbs[1], and an e-bike that claims to have a shipping weight of 60 lbs[2]. So assuming 3x battery weight for roughly the same power, that means an extra battery weight of 13 lbs and a total bike weight of 73 lbs for a battery that could possibly fit in the frame (as opposed to be mounted on the down tube). So that is definitely getting on the heavy side for a bike but the bike in question is also relatively 'over-powered' as far as e-bikes go (25 mi self-powered range, 350 watt motor). A lot of the sleeker/higher end e-bikes are 'pedal-assist only' and already hide the battery in the frame. These bikes can get in the sub 40 lb range, and probably use 1/2 the battery that the one in the link does. So an extra 10-15 lbs is probably manageable and it would result in a bit more range while still being able to hide the battery in the frame (assuming a li-ion battery weight of ~3lbs, you would add an extra 6lbs to 'break even', or an extra 15 to double the power).

For scooters/mopeds, the math probably works out even better, as these are already over 100 lbs, and an extra 30-40 lbs won't really matter that much. And if you want to build a electric scooter or motorcycle that can go highway speeds, that extra weight can help with stability.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/36V-11AH-Li-ion-E-Bike-Battery/dp/B01... [2] https://www.amazon.com/Addmotor-HITHOT-Electric-Bicycle-Susp...

I think your analysis suffers from recency bias. Almost all inventions were incremental improvements on existing ideas and experiments, very few were huge Eureka! moments. Morse code was invented around 1840 and radio communication in around 1900. It took 60 years to go from wired to wireless. The first supercomputer was built in the 1960's and 50 years later we were walking around with internet connected computers in our pocket that had a few orders of magnitude more processing power than their early predecessors. That evolution took a lot of inventing to achieve, and it has fundamentally changed society. It may not have felt as transformative to you because you were alive to witness the transition and the different iterations that led us to where we currently are, but make no mistake, the level of technical advancement in the last 50 years is unparalleled to any other time in our history.

Thanks for the substantive reply;)

In almost all cases where I need to do a find/replace there are typically no more than 4-5 references that need to be updated. And I think a better way to phrase my behavior is I search, inspect the code to make sure that my change won't introduce a bug or some unintended consequence, and then replace. This may be slower, but in the grand scheme of things it barely registers on my overall productivity and if it saves even one bug from getting introduced into the code than the extra time spent probably pays for itself. If I need to update more than just a handful of references, than Sublime has a perfectly functional find/replace tool, but I have only ever really needed it maybe 3-4 times in the last few years.

To get back to the question at hand. How long does it take you to formulate these series of commands in your example? Because to me it feels like it would take longer to come up with a correct set of commands for your example than it would be to just search and replace 'by hand'. Of course if you are updating 100's of references than spending some extra time to formulate your solution makes sense, but in your example, you limited your search ~1000 loc, so presumably you are only updating a few lines, maybe a dozen at most? I understand that vim is powerful tool, but it seems to solve problems that I don't have (or that I don't consider to be problems), and I am genuinely curious as to the sort of problems and types of code bases that vim aficionados work on.

How often do you find yourself doing operations like this? I feel like it would take me more time to formulate and confirm that your set of commands are correct than it would for me to just ctrl+f to each instance and then ctrl-v the ones that needed to be changed. Don't get me wrong, I think it is really cool that you can do this, but it feels like this requires a level of fu that is beyond most typical programmers.