As for the Korean war, it's kind of a fuzzy topic. There was no formal peace deal, just an armistice that became the status quo. And there are still occasional clashes. These probably aren't the kind of sources you're looking for but it's a weird topic. To me it's more obvious that we lost Vietnam than Afghanistan yet I've heard so many arguments the US did win Vietnam (usually where "winning" means something different to different people). Either way Afghanistan was at least an embarrassment.
When I first read the headline China immediately came to mind. Just recently the US started investing in ports in other countries, just like China has done. And now the US will probably start competing on another front that China has taken a lead role in.
I think other comments have already answered this. But in the back of my mind I imagine if companies abused it much worse than they did, they would've gotten much more unwarranted attention, and it was already deeply hated amongst tech savvy people and ISPs are already some of the most hated companies in general. Taking advantage while they could have would have dug that hole yet even deeper and would only make it more likely that a law would be created sooner rather than later making it illegal, so it just wasn't worth the investment on any meaningful scale.
There are probably multiple layers of feedback loops going on, who knows how things will pan out. There's a sufficiently large enough pool of investors out there that will buy broad ETFs like SCHB, SPY, VT, VTI, etc., on any dip or just continue to DCA a little of every paycheck into those just due to its history. The US is geographically isolated from potential threats for the most part unlike Europe and Japan, is relatively self-sufficient, super diversified and lots of international exposure, and no country has as much clout on the international stage as the US for the time being so I think it makes sense the US continues to do much better. Sometimes you have trends like emerging markets, cryptos, etc., but broad US stock market seems like the default choice for high returns so long as there is capital to be allocated.
Interest rates are the thing I think could change things, but who knows. If you can get a guaranteed 5% return that's pretty nice, but it's possible we just slide into being a more corrupt/untrustworthy country for investments or baby boomers suddenly taking a disproportionate amount of money out of the market as they retire, etc.,.
I don't have a source on me but I've read plenty about wealthy people in other countries buying large amounts of Canadian real estate as a store of value, even if it sits vacant. Mostly people in countries where there aren't so many great places to invest. But I don't know off hand if that's just a drop in the bucket compared to other things or what.
The tech sector is big on innovation and that probably seems orthogonal to government contracts to many. It feels like IBM is a dinosaur using the government to stay alive meanwhile companies like Microsoft and Google have contributed to the ecosystem of tools I use every day while thriving and feel like sexy companies in comparison. I don't know the company that well but this is how I think many view it.
Just guessing here, but I'd guess out of that ~16m US citizens, you're more likely to find people that have started a multi-billion dollar business than compared to the general population. And the other demographic that tends to be big on starting businesses are immigrants. And Elon Musk just happens to fall into both groups really.
The article focuses on the writing, not so much the actual understanding. I've wondered if there's actually an advantage in understanding when reading English documentation, sources, etc., in that some native English speaker might be inclined to lazily learn something by just memorizing key points as the words are written and such whereas a non-fluent English speaker would have to mentally translate ideas into their native language and then memorize that mental translation. It's an extra muscle that gets exercised.
Stopped at the paywall. But is this likely a case of the number of driverless taxis skyrocketing itself, and the number of incidents per driverless taxi mile being more or less constant?
This post reminds me of exactly the balance I've been toying with. One particular service I work with has ~6 main jobs it does that are all kind of related in some way but still distinct from each other. That could've been designed as 6 microservices, but there are services that do other things as well - it's not all contained in giant one monolith so it's somewhere in the middle.
The software is going to be deployed at different locations with different scaling concerns. In some places, it's fine to just run 1 instance where it does all 6 jobs continuously. At other places, I anticipate adding parameters or something so it can run multiple instances of a subset of the jobs, but not necessarily all the jobs on every instance.
Crash as in what? Get delisted from the Nasdaq and go bankrupt or just have a bad bearish couple years or something? Their cashflow had pretty consistently improved since their IPO, they would've maybe had a couple bearish years, would've laid off employees like most other tech companies and most likely would have roughly followed the overall Nasdaq trajectory in the market. But that's a normal business cycle, the stock market is full of companies in much worse shape (look at Amazon for its first decade) that can survive any storm as long as their DSCR ratio isn't crazy...like Twitter's is now.
Could probably find it in Google but I think there was a study that show Harvard (and some other similar universities) do offer an advantage in that it's the only way many people from disadvantaged backgrounds can mingle with people with connections, opportunities, etc.,. There's no educational advantage necessarily, but the same students going to a state school for example aren't going to be exposed to the same level of access to upwards mobility. People that are born into families with that access however, experience no additional advantage since they were already essentially born with it.
Typical fruits people eat are probably the ones that were the easiest to domesticate and have the most sugar, not necessarily representative of more variety in nutrition. And what you might consider a variety of vegetables is in fact just the same couple species but different cultivars. And modern people certainly eat more meat but for the most part have totally abandoned eating organs and other tissue. Probably not as much difference in chicken breast vs turkey breast as chicken breast vs chicken gizzards. I ate mutton and liver as a kid, I've known other people that ate chicken feet as kids. So in some ways you don't even see the variety today you did a generation ago, but things like avocados are more common I guess.
It doesn't feel like such a bold claim to me. Dividing neighborhoods (i.e. redlining) lead to ghettos, inner city violence, white flight, etc., Today there is barely any remnant of the middle class in major urban areas and more traffic than ever. City planners (and policy makers) are not civil engineers.
It's pretty marginal but there are a couple instances where I'm at that are slowly being addressed, where some really large, poorly located parking lots are making some areas more flood prone and holding up development in their vicinity.
I've started doing this (materialized views denormalizing data) at work more recently and it's been immensely helpful. Surprised more people don't do this.
The first example that comes to mind is the textile industry starting in the northeast US where unions are strongest, then moving south where they still had some unions but were much weaker, and eventually going overseas. Could argue the same thing for the US steel industry but I don't know. Or you can also find plenty of companies keeping their legacy business with unions as they are but only expanding forward to places not so friendly to unions - e.g. Boeing opening its latest plant in South Carolina without a union unlike its original counterpart in Seattle. Of course there's already differences in labor costs regardless of unions and other factors at play.
I'm for unions in principle and I have family members that have certainly benefited from unions on the one hand but I've known plenty of people in private sector unions that feel like their union dues are only getting someone else richer while they're stuck in dead-end jobs just to make ends meet.
I think the idea is there's a curve where the less business friendly the unions are willing to negotiate at, the more likely businesses outsource. And there's some point where so many of the businesses have outsourced everything we basically don't have the infrastructure for it any longer or hiring is scarce.
Why not only tax finite resources like land & oil or sin taxes only or something else instead? Main differences that come to mind are tax collecting efficiency and value judgement. Is it better to punish the poor by having all their income effectively taxed so that we can avoid punishing the rich? Someone has to have the burden, and every additional dollar is worth less to someone with lots of dollars. But there's also the effects. Consumption taxes make a lot of sense in touristy areas, but do large swaths of society want a tax system that reduces class mobility? There are always discussions how to get around it, like give everyone a monthly payment to make up the difference, don't apply the tax to certain things, etc., but they're work arounds.
The thing is poor people have to spend all their income, wealthy people don't. So poor people have all their income taxed, while wealthy people surely aren't spending their last dollar on yachts for the most part. Wealthy people have lots of leftover income to invest and make yet even more money instead. At least with an income tax you can ensure no one pays taxes on their first $x and such.
What's an example of a society that's more human-oriented, that doesn't have capitalism? I feel like when people push to end capitalism, what they really mean is they want a large social safety net, higher pay for low end workers or higher taxes for the wealthy, more or better enforced regulations, etc., which doesn't necessarily negate capitalism as the fundamental driving force of the economy. Just my take.
Not saying this is wrong, but it's kind of misleading the same way electoral college maps are misleading. People moving to the south working in tech aren't moving to the vast areas that are plagued with issues. They're moving to metros like Austin, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, etc., which are on par with life expectancy in California in that map.
According to the article Elon Musk could've been even more Elon Musk. He reduced his investment by $900m because he thought it was fatally behind Google's effort.
Just curious, why do you think they want to destroy nations? It seems like if banks want to destroy the economy they have the means to do more effective things than trying to get governments to embrace green policies.