215 karma · joined June 10, 2013
Housing prices continuously rising to slurp up any marginal income has been studied by economists for a couple of centuries (rent extraction), and taxation solutions such as a Land Value Tax were suggested by Adam Smith himself.
https://blogs.imf.org/2021/10/18/housing-prices-continue-to-...
sadly necessary /s
They are explicitly not that. Docker containers do not provide you any real isolation guarantees from a security POV and make no attempts at such. This is extensively documented. [1]
"If you're running Docker in a VM on a bare metal server you're doing it wrong. "
Ummm... Running Docker inside a VM is by far the most common deployment type of Docker there is. What do you think is an EC2/ECS/GKE deployment? Hint, there's a VM running your containers in all of them. This is also what Docker the company recommends - https://www.docker.com/blog/containers-and-vms-together/
[1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowsconta... https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/containers/containers-vs-vm...
GE’s breathtaking growth under Welch was fueled in large part by its transformation into a financial services superpower. By 2000, nearly half of the company’s revenue—$96 billion—came from GE Capital
GE’s exposure to finance proved to be an enormous vulnerability after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and particularly during the financial crisis of 2008. While Welch’s successor, Jeff Immelt, tried to diminish GE’s reliance on finance, his efforts came too late.
Why wouldn't you count it? Do those days not-count somehow?
However, you DON'T have to maximize your profits above all other corporations. There's no such actual fiduciary duty and there never could be. That's the point the poster is trying to make - something being legal doesn't make it ethical and acting in a unethical, but legal, manner does not absolve you of contempt.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/difference-between-...
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/11/13/1542091438000/How-acc...
These results beg the question of just how much weight we should give analysts' earnings forecasts. It turns out, not much, especially in the long run.
Peter Berezin, the chief global strategist at BCA Research, is out with a new report about stock selection and market timing. In it, he asks the following: "How can we distinguish between hidden gems and fool's gold?" The answer, he determines, is not the thousands of analysts Wall Street has bankrolled to do just that
PS - Just to be perfectly clear, I was definitely joking about WSB. Sister comment is right, WSB is the 4chan of "finance".
Ironically this is exactly the point you miss - Intel's business it to produce and sells silicone. Intel's cohorts are AMD, ARM and NVIDIA, and they are all technology companies who's business is the development and sell of technology.
Apple produces consumer electronics, and though in many cases it also designs and produces some internal technology components, their business is not in any way dependent on selling that tech in itself. In fact it's arguable that the main influence on whether an apple component is developed in house or outsourced is economical/logistical and not tech based at all. Apple's cohorts are Sony, Samsung, LG etc, all consumer electronics providers.
Apologies if I read too much into your comment, but Appeal to Authority is a name of a logical fallacy and ascribes some sort of intellectual failure to the poster, when there's clearly none.
Eh. "It could only be this way, because it was" is a textbook definition of begging the question and circular reasoning. It's entirely possible that there were multiple extrinsic reasons that lead to this situation that aren't "leaded fuel was just the better option". Marketing/PR, industry momentum, regulatory capture, cost-of-entry into the fuel industry. In fact it was noted below that the leaded fuel inventor has partnered with GM.
This is exactly what the GP meant by invoking History vs. Econ 101. You're assuming that this simplistic model of price/demand is an inevitable law of nature even though there are countless counter examples throughout history of the wrong decisions made for the wrong reasons.
The byline is "Contrary to conventional wisdom, it tends to cost money, but it improves quality of life at a very reasonable price."
and the article closes with this
But money doesn’t have to be saved to make something worthwhile. Prevention improves outcomes. It makes people healthier. It improves quality of life. It often does so for a very reasonable price.
There are many good arguments for increasing our focus on prevention. Almost all have to do with improving quality, though, not reducing spending. We would do well to admit that and move forward.
Sometimes good things cost money.