Interesting point. If ideas, arguments, and claims in video and audio can be visualized more effectively, that might change things even more.
20 karma · joined January 28, 2011
Interesting point. If ideas, arguments, and claims in video and audio can be visualized more effectively, that might change things even more.
It may be true that the number of $1 billion exits per year is only, say, 10 times fewer than the number of $50 million exits. It's an empirical question. The numbers matter.
Let's just raise the $1 billion number until it's a better bet to go for $50 million. At some point the argument that "both are just absurdly big numbers" breaks down.
Perhaps the reason people think that the numbers don't matter is because they believe that the skills required to build a $50 million company is no different than those required to build a $1 billion (or $100 billion) company. That I buy.
In the coming decades, We may or may not be able to significantly extend life, but it's not clear why it's unlikely, or why it causes harm to even think about.
The article is about "why stocks beat gold and bonds" not "why you should own only stocks and never own any gold or bonds".
An alternative interpretation of the article is simply that Apple is targeting a more profitable segment of the market -- smartphones.
It happens to be the case that this segment has grown really fast and have both the highest margins and the highest total profits. This is perhaps not the case in most industries, which may be interesting.
> I'm not sure what happens in terms of formal default if a borrower deliberately and aggressively inlfates away its debt faster than lenders can react by demanding higher interest rates at the next auction.
This is the reason why I asked my question(s). Why would the borrower ever aggressively inflate away its debt, as opposed to gradually inflating it away? If there is no definite point of default, the US is either defaulting frequently, or can never default.
I wonder what the definition of default is, and if it's an event or a process.
Anyone know if this is correct?
Also: If the US defaults, how does it go down?
Here's why I'm confused:
Given that the US can't default on its nominal obligations, how does it default on its real obligations, so to speak? Printing money, aka inflation, is one way, but there's always inflation. Does that mean that the US is always defaulting to some degree? I'm thinking no, because lenders are compensated for higher inflation with higher interest rates. Would the US ever go "no, Chang, we're not going to give back your $10, sorry"?
Maybe someone can enlighten me.
(a) I love this sentence, and (b) this is probably why people are so excited about Dropbox, myself included.
But, the potential of a company is not equal to the potential of its product category (unless it's a monopoly that lasts for all time).
All else being equal, wouldn't you pay more for a company with high growth potential than one with low growth potential?
It's easy to find SIFT implementations, but you'll have to do some work to construct a training set of images for each type of chess piece. An elegant solution will probably detect the type of piece independent of its color, or the color of the square.
This might be ridiculously easy, or not work at all.