turc1656

...huh? I've been in corporate America for 19 years now and I've never once had this happen. I've never seen anyone just look for the cause and not ask what can be done to prevent it in the future. Everyone KNOWS that question is coming next.

For productivity, I absolutely require either a docking station or some sort of KVM switch setup so I can use a regular keyboard, mouse, and monitor. That, or I just remote desktop right into my secured work device which essentially serves the same purpose. I lock myself in my home office and tell the wife and kids to act like I'm at the actual office.

The work/life balance is actually better because I don't have to commute. Just make sure if you normally go to the gym that you keep that up...assuming your gym doesn't close because of this. The gym seems like a primary place to close down because of this virus.

We use Skype and Teams to keep the chic chat style banter and useless meme-sharing alive and well.

Hell, just writing that out actually makes me think twice about calling and booking something. But I have young children and my wife would be unnecessarily worried the whole time and she doesn't even like cruises.

You can store the database (encrypted of course) in a Dropbox account that it can connect to. The desktop version can also periodically store backups locally on any device you want. If you treat the Dropbox as the centralized master, every one of your employees can simply use either the Windows desktop app or just keep a browser tab open with it (like I do at work). Any changes anyone makes will instantly be reflected across all instances.

I've never tried using for more than my 3 devices, but I don't see why it wouldn't work seamlessly.

For example, if we took a simpler example of something more people are familiar with like options...let's say you buy a put at a strike of 100. The stock is trading right around 100. The market tanks like it has been doing and the stock goes down to 80. That's great for you since you had the put. You technically have the right to buy the shares at the market and shove them onto someone and force them to pay you 100. Most of the time, since we're dealing with derivatives, they just trade the value of the option itself and skip dealing with the underlying security because it takes a lot of capital (100 shares * 80 bucks each in this case). So the value of the option (the derivative) should be around $20 as you approach expiration and the premium fades off. If the market maker for the options has way too much exposure and wrote naked puts (meaning they didn't have the underlying security) they took on a ton of risk and basically got fucked. In this scenario it's like Burry calling and finding out his options are worth like $1.50 instead of $20 simply because they are thinly traded and therefore can't get a good price by anyone. This actually happens on some options - you'll see a huge spread between the bid and ask on some options so it's not like it doesn't happen even for this type of retail-friendly derivative.

You don't actually need to improve efficiency/productivity if the government has tools like the discount rate, open market operations, the ability to alter margin requirements on derivatives, fed funds rate, as well as programs and policies like MMIF, TAF, CPPF, ABCP, TALF, ZIRP, to manipulate the money supply and the velocity/flow rates of money.

I like that idea better, honestly. It's more accurate and doesn't require video monitoring and all sorts of AI/ML/DL algorithms. Though, I don't know the practicality of attaching RFIDs to everything, nor the cost. And I assume some people would try to just rip them off, which I imagine would be the biggest concern, in addition to having the staff attach them to everything.

OPs point is clearly that the panic selling is not rational and they are acting accordingly. Whether or not that's correct remains to be seen, however.

I'm not saying you can't or wont' succeed. I have no idea.

But it seems like the first thing that happened is that you decided you wanted to start a business. Usually it's the reverse - you get inspired by discovering a problem and realize you have the skillset and motivation to solve it and then you come to the realization that you need to start a business to do that. For founders/entrepreneurs with experience having done that previously, this is likely a scenario with a much higher probability of success.

But I imagine the success rate of people who say "I want to start my own business" and then look for a business to start have much lower success rates.

I'm not trying to rain no your parade at all. Just wanted to give you something to think about before you spend a fortune in time and/or money starting something. I could easily be wrong, though. Just food for thought.

If that's the case then Hohn shouldn't even need to push this agenda at all. Coal usage would go down dramatically naturally based on market competition from renewables based on his own statement. Either he doesn't believe that, or he does and there's something else going on.

I imagine the rules are similar - you must be able to have your clients trade during normal market hours. The regulators understand there can be unexpected events that put systems down unexpectedly (high volume, bug that crashes the system, etc.) and are generally pretty understanding. But I think something like this where they are down the whole day (and STILL down from the looks of their status page, though they claim to have identified the issue), could easily earn them a fine from the regulators for not meeting the license/charter requirements.

I personally had no issues when one of their insured drivers hit my car. I waited for the police report, which clearly stated the other driver was at fault, and I was promptly paid by them for the damage to my vehicle. I didn't have to file anything through my insurance and they were very easy going about the whole thing.

I think people are also much more likely to talk to one another about the "shitty new Walmart healthcare service" because they know everyone knows Walmart and might use it. It's far less likely that you warn people about one single DDS office in your town unless perhaps that specific service provider came up in conversation.

You may want to check out a guy named Robin Sharma. You can find a bunch of his videos on YouTube. No need to pay for anything. The videos contain pretty much all you need. I'm trying to work on incorporating his ideas into my routines. What he talks about really is all about mentality and what sets apart superachievers from everyone else.

EDIT - just realized your question was specifically aimed at personal projects. The second paragraph still applies, in that case, but you can ignore the first as there won't be any embarrassment from personal projects not being completed. Oh, that just reminded me...for the personal stuff you can use one of those sites that is designed to hold you accountable by bringing in family/friends to monitor your progress and you set a clear goal with a clear penalty if you fail to deliver, and they are there to see if you follow through or not. The website I am familiar with is https://www.stickk.com/ but I'm sure there are others.

No individual or company has to necessarily "respect" your first amendment right to free speech, as that is something that can only be violated by the government or a government affiliated entity for which these protections also apply.

When I first read the Twitter thread I was sort of dumbfounded that whoever did this originally didn't actually check it. That's not a SO or .NET problem that needs to be caught. It's a developer problem.

If someone is copying code into their project that they've never seen before, they should, at bare minimum, make sure it produces the expected result for the first instance they are using it. That developer should have checked to see that the GUID was actually the one from their assembly. Even if someone is copying some complex code that they aren't 100% sure how it operates, they can still test it to make sure it produces what they think it does.

The idea that someone working for Docker just copy, pasted, and then didn't check that it actually did what it was supposed to do is sort of mind-blowing to me. Not sure why no one else is talking about that. I've never used Docker before, but this doesn't instill confidence. It's one thing to have something like this in your end product - that's bad enough. It's another thing entirely when your company builds tools for other developers to use. That shit needs to be rock solid and this is one of those things that seriously worries me when I see it because it's about a lack of effort/testing and someone just blindly took code and didn't even bother to check it.

But the same thing is true for a ponzi scheme, right? The idea is a never-ending growth from which new people pay the existing. The requirement that the US population must continue to grow - not just stagnate and contain the same number of people, but grow, indicates a ponzi-esque scheme to me. There is a finite amount of resources on the planet. Therefore there is a finite number of people that can be living on this planet. But such systems mathematically require that the number of new people constantly goes up over time. This is indicative of an unsustainable system.

If it were altered in a way such that, for example, there was a 1:1 (payers:recipients) relationship (or less) between the number of payers and the number of recipients, than I'd say that's sustainable because it doesn't require growth. Currently we have ~130M payers and 64M recipients, which means there's a roughly 2:1 ratio. On the surface it looks fine because you think hey people work for 40-45 years and then retire for 20 so 2:1 sounds about right. And it is, but only if you can continue to produce that larger base forever.

EDIT: This is not correct. It appears they have borrowed against the SS fund using treasuries, which will have to be back. Or phrased another way - the SS system chose to invest in US debt.

In this way, the government simply collects money from current earners and then distributes that to the existing retirees. It's not like there is a trust set up and your money is locked away with your name on it. Canada's system may or may not be structured the same way. The idea is that if the government defaults on this, then there are much larger issues anyway. But because it's just a tax they can technically do whatever they want with the money and being the scumbags that they are, they periodically do steal from that money, which is why Social Security is underfunded.

Personally, I think the payouts are even pretty respectable, despite what others might think. The average payout is currently around $1,500 per person per month. That's not a lot, but if you have a spouse that's $36,000 a year. Also, one thing that most forget is that even if your spouse doesn't work their entire life (i.e. stay at home parent), a spouse can claim an additional 50% of their spouses as their own. Every person who is married has this option - they can claim their own or the 50% of their spouses (which does not reduce their spouses, it's just on top). For anyone working, it usually makes sense to claim their own unless there is a massive difference in pay. So if one person is scheduled for 2k a month, the other is guaranteed at least 1k or their own if it's higher.

Honestly, it's a nice idea and has been working reasonably well for decades. But the issue is that when you look at it with a technical eye, you'll see it's all basically the same structure as a ponzi scheme. The current people taxed don't pay for themselves, they pay for others who came before them. Over time the number of people required to pay for a single retiree has gone up. This indicates a growth requirement in the tax base. Without this constant growth which seems to go up more and more over time, the system fails. People ignore this because they think it's impossible because it's run by government. I'm not so sure that's true.

Remember, corporate pensions were a big thing when the US was at it's greatest economic strength (post-WW2) and the internet with all of its modern tools to make investing much simpler for the average person didn't exist. You had to pay brokers for every single trade or someone else to advise you or you had to just buy and hold a small set of stocks for 30 years and hope those companies would still be around (a fair bet at that time).

Back then companies didn't really go under like this. If anything, they got bought by a larger company and merged, but the frequency of that was nothing like today.

Today, with health care costs what they are, having pensions and defined benefit plans are insane to me. It's much better for the company to say "we will match x% in a 401k". They are defining their contribution and it has a cap. If anything happens to the company, the employee's funds are safe as the money is already transferred. For the employee, it does require them to manage this money but that's far easier and cheaper today and that money doesn't require the company to be around forever. If things tank, the employee is protected.