Back during the first bubble, particularly around the time that Redhat went public, I was fascinated at how many IPOs were priced in the $15 to $30/share range regardless of what that implied about their total value.
These folks have figured out how to game the uninformed investor looking to make a quick buck on IPOs. $5 makes people think the company is a dog, $50 to $100 makes them think it's overpriced. The fact that neither number says anything about valuation is immaterial.
So sure, $24 looks like a great price for a piece of stock, who cares if it implies a grossly overvalued stock.
I despise the new MBA management style that all ideas have merit or that there are no stupid questions.
In my experience many of the people I've run across who complain that the company managers (or me when I was in that position) don't respect their ideas don't realize that their ideas are crap. They typically have a very myopic view of what the company does, what it needs or what constitutes a good idea. They have no real concept of risk, logistics, development overhead, basic physics, human nature or a slew of other issues. Their ideas can be frequently characterized as 'wouldn't be cool if'.
I rose through the ranks with a GED and no college education in an environment dominated by PhDs by having what turned out to be good ideas.
So sure, in some environments, good ideas are squashed by pointy haired bosses, but many times it's just a dumb idea.
I'd blame Trump's ilk for that too. If you vilify a group (gays in the Orlando case) long enough some unhinged asshat will decide he's taking action for the greater good.
As far as I'm concerned the epitome of a chickenshit is somebody standing on the sidelines cheering on some action and then disclaiming it once it occurs.
And you're reasonably confident he never discusses anything of a sensitive nature outside that room ? It's trivial to remotely enable the mic and record.
It's trained on plausible images, so it's going to produce plausible images but there's nothing that says that the resulting plausible image is a reasonable reproduction of the original, only that it's good enough to make a human think 'yep, that's another human'.
The same, simply lower. While crime is higher in urban areas it's still statistically insignificant compared to natural causes and more than offset by the increased death rate from accidents (like car crashes) which are more likely to be fatal due to the poorer health care.
For years YouTube benefited from increasing customer base but the market is saturated. Just about everybody who can and would watch YouTube has.
In addition there are more and more videos competing for the same fixed pool. End result, less views per specific video.
Their best bet is to start carrying porn. In the short term it will attract attention, in the longer term they might help create more humans to watch porn.
Carbon neutral means carbon neutral, it says nothing about whether it's good or bad. Slave labor turning a windlass is carbon neutral but probably sub-optimal in terms of modern morality.
So saying wood burning is carbon neutral doesn't ignore anything, it's simply a statement. That said, yes, shifting to a wood burning energy stance is probably not optimal.
Stupid ass hyperbole (seas boiling) is not helping.
Increases in CO2 are real, impacts to global temperature due to CO2 are real, impacts to life (human or otherwise, positive and negative) due to rising temperatures and ocean levels are real.
Hollywood-esque hyperbole just confuses the issue and makes it trivial to lump all information into the same cesspool of misinformation.
I generally have 6 to 8 virtual desktops, each dedicated to a particular type of task or project. Within each desktop I typically have a browser, 2 or 3 if the browsers are showing fundamentally different things. Within each browser I'll have anywhere from 1 to 6 (rarely more) tabs on different slants on the same topic.
So if I'm working on AWS that would be in a virtual desktop. I might have one browser for dynamic stuff (like their console) and one for documentation. The documentation browser may well have 6 tabs. When I'm not using the browser I icon-ify it.
Trivial, at least for me, to keep things sorted that way. I know if I'm on desktop X then I'll have a browser dedicated to X, if I don't see it then it's been icon-ified.
Not counting cutting wood on your farm, name one energy source that wasn't subsidized as it replaced the prevailing source. Camphor oil, whale oil, kerosene, oil, coal, nuclear, hydro have all been the beneficiary of federal subsidies, some much more than others.
If you own coal futures and want to see them do well you'd be much better off blowing up some natural gas refineries than worrying about solar.
According to what I'm sure was a rigorous study by the company wanting you to buy their widget US homeowners receive on average 27 packages per year and of those nearly 11 million are stolen. The Great Omniscient Optimal Guessing Library Engine says there are 86 Million homeowners which gives 2.3 Billion packages per year
So the theft rate is about.5%. So the average home owner would see one theft per 8 years (assuming homogenized thieves).
This already happens with drugs that only provide a chance at euphoria for a few hours. Not a real leap to think the same thing will happen at a larger scale if it adds years to your life.
Pick a number pretty much any number, double it, somebody will pay that.
There won't be an overpopulation problem because only.001% of the population will be able to afford it.
What there will be is huge black market that primarily consists of fake treatments that will kill you, probably. If the odds are a million to one that you get to reset to some lower age or die of old age people will roll the dice.
I think that's kind of the point. Humans may believe they have free will but as a species they're quite gullible and easily convinced ideas are their own.
A child born today whose every choice and preference is tracked can be led later in life such that they feel they're entirely free to choose exactly what's been chosen for them.
I get the caring, I was doing something similar to this long before they started. In 2007-8 I intentionally avoided moving toward the very safe fossil fuel market.
It was more the tone of the article slanted toward the idea that they were in some way inflicting financial pain that I found confusing which is differeng than doing it for altruistic or ethical reasons.
The post below supplies some evidence that is in fact cutting into their bottom line and forcing the companies to buy back stock at 6x the normal rate to keep the price propped up. If that is indeed the case then it completely changes my view on what they're doing.
The article isn't clear but it implies that most of the divestment comes from removing fossil fuel companies from stock portfolios.
If so then the companies aren't buying those stocks back, somebody else is buying them. It doesn't effect the company one bit, other than maybe drive the price down minutely while it's a sellers market. All that really does is minutely help the buyers who are now taking on the risk and the reward of owning that stock.
Either I'm confused about what they're doing or they are.
Technically there's no reason we can't actually populate other planets or solar systems in 1000 years if we decide to. On the other hand there's no reason we can't sustain human culture on this planet for another billion years if we decide to.
So sure, by all means lets investigate technologies to more efficiently explore our surroundings but let's spend a bit more effort on sustainability in the balance. For starters we could stop spending the vast majority of our energy arguing over issues that don't matter one bit (where to go to the bathroom, sexual preference of the person 4 doors down).
If we can't figure out how to solve sustainability problems moving to another planet is just a change of scenery.
Slashdot Mirror
Back during the first bubble, particularly around the time that Redhat went public, I was fascinated at how many IPOs were priced in the $15 to $30/share range regardless of what that implied about their total value.
These folks have figured out how to game the uninformed investor looking to make a quick buck on IPOs. $5 makes people think the company is a dog, $50 to $100 makes them think it's overpriced. The fact that neither number says anything about valuation is immaterial.
So sure, $24 looks like a great price for a piece of stock, who cares if it implies a grossly overvalued stock.
I despise the new MBA management style that all ideas have merit or that there are no stupid questions.
In my experience many of the people I've run across who complain that the company managers (or me when I was in that position) don't respect their ideas don't realize that their ideas are crap. They typically have a very myopic view of what the company does, what it needs or what constitutes a good idea. They have no real concept of risk, logistics, development overhead, basic physics, human nature or a slew of other issues. Their ideas can be frequently characterized as 'wouldn't be cool if'.
I rose through the ranks with a GED and no college education in an environment dominated by PhDs by having what turned out to be good ideas.
So sure, in some environments, good ideas are squashed by pointy haired bosses, but many times it's just a dumb idea.
And yet we can't seem to create AC posters who can pass the Turing Test.
I'd blame Trump's ilk for that too. If you vilify a group (gays in the Orlando case) long enough some unhinged asshat will decide he's taking action for the greater good.
As far as I'm concerned the epitome of a chickenshit is somebody standing on the sidelines cheering on some action and then disclaiming it once it occurs.
2+2 is equal to 5 for arbitrarily large values of 2.
I'll make you a deal, you get your god to stop being such a petulant ass and I'll give him the respect he deserves.
And you're reasonably confident he never discusses anything of a sensitive nature outside that room ? It's trivial to remotely enable the mic and record.
Just watch his twitter feed. If he begins making sane, rational tweets you'll know it was hacked.
It's trained on plausible images, so it's going to produce plausible images but there's nothing that says that the resulting plausible image is a reasonable reproduction of the original, only that it's good enough to make a human think 'yep, that's another human'.
Just treat it like any normal tax agency would treat it with late fees calculated on a prorated monthly basis.
If they were looking at 1B Euro penalties I'm pretty sure they'd have paid on time.
The same, simply lower. While crime is higher in urban areas it's still statistically insignificant compared to natural causes and more than offset by the increased death rate from accidents (like car crashes) which are more likely to be fatal due to the poorer health care.
For years YouTube benefited from increasing customer base but the market is saturated. Just about everybody who can and would watch YouTube has.
In addition there are more and more videos competing for the same fixed pool. End result, less views per specific video.
Their best bet is to start carrying porn. In the short term it will attract attention, in the longer term they might help create more humans to watch porn.
Carbon neutral means carbon neutral, it says nothing about whether it's good or bad. Slave labor turning a windlass is carbon neutral but probably sub-optimal in terms of modern morality.
So saying wood burning is carbon neutral doesn't ignore anything, it's simply a statement. That said, yes, shifting to a wood burning energy stance is probably not optimal.
Stupid ass hyperbole (seas boiling) is not helping.
Increases in CO2 are real, impacts to global temperature due to CO2 are real, impacts to life (human or otherwise, positive and negative) due to rising temperatures and ocean levels are real.
Hollywood-esque hyperbole just confuses the issue and makes it trivial to lump all information into the same cesspool of misinformation.
Virtual desktops.
I generally have 6 to 8 virtual desktops, each dedicated to a particular type of task or project.
Within each desktop I typically have a browser, 2 or 3 if the browsers are showing fundamentally different things.
Within each browser I'll have anywhere from 1 to 6 (rarely more) tabs on different slants on the same topic.
So if I'm working on AWS that would be in a virtual desktop. I might have one browser for dynamic stuff (like their console) and one for documentation. The documentation browser may well have 6 tabs. When I'm not using the browser I icon-ify it.
Trivial, at least for me, to keep things sorted that way. I know if I'm on desktop X then I'll have a browser dedicated to X, if I don't see it then it's been icon-ified.
Not counting cutting wood on your farm, name one energy source that wasn't subsidized as it replaced the prevailing source. Camphor oil, whale oil, kerosene, oil, coal, nuclear, hydro have all been the beneficiary of federal subsidies, some much more than others.
If you own coal futures and want to see them do well you'd be much better off blowing up some natural gas refineries than worrying about solar.
Unless you look at the totals.
According to what I'm sure was a rigorous study by the company wanting you to buy their widget US homeowners receive on average 27 packages per year and of those nearly 11 million are stolen. The Great Omniscient Optimal Guessing Library Engine says there are 86 Million homeowners which gives 2.3 Billion packages per year
So the theft rate is about .5%. So the average home owner would see one theft per 8 years (assuming homogenized thieves).
This already happens with drugs that only provide a chance at euphoria for a few hours. Not a real leap to think the same thing will happen at a larger scale if it adds years to your life.
We could always sterilize the anonymous cowards. They seem to be breeding like flies.
Pick a number pretty much any number, double it, somebody will pay that.
There won't be an overpopulation problem because only .001% of the population will be able to afford it.
What there will be is huge black market that primarily consists of fake treatments that will kill you, probably. If the odds are a million to one that you get to reset to some lower age or die of old age people will roll the dice.
I think that's kind of the point. Humans may believe they have free will but as a species they're quite gullible and easily convinced ideas are their own.
A child born today whose every choice and preference is tracked can be led later in life such that they feel they're entirely free to choose exactly what's been chosen for them.
20 bpb represents around a 1.1% increase not a .000002% increase. It went from 1810 to 1830 bpb.
I get the caring, I was doing something similar to this long before they started. In 2007-8 I intentionally avoided moving toward the very safe fossil fuel market.
It was more the tone of the article slanted toward the idea that they were in some way inflicting financial pain that I found confusing which is differeng than doing it for altruistic or ethical reasons.
The post below supplies some evidence that is in fact cutting into their bottom line and forcing the companies to buy back stock at 6x the normal rate to keep the price propped up. If that is indeed the case then it completely changes my view on what they're doing.
The article isn't clear but it implies that most of the divestment comes from removing fossil fuel companies from stock portfolios.
If so then the companies aren't buying those stocks back, somebody else is buying them. It doesn't effect the company one bit, other than maybe drive the price down minutely while it's a sellers market. All that really does is minutely help the buyers who are now taking on the risk and the reward of owning that stock.
Either I'm confused about what they're doing or they are.
No problem, just reverse the polarity and they'll consume electricity and emit a warm glow and melt off all that snow.
But -100 for taking a bit too long a view.
Technically there's no reason we can't actually populate other planets or solar systems in 1000 years if we decide to. On the other hand there's no reason we can't sustain human culture on this planet for another billion years if we decide to.
So sure, by all means lets investigate technologies to more efficiently explore our surroundings but let's spend a bit more effort on sustainability in the balance. For starters we could stop spending the vast majority of our energy arguing over issues that don't matter one bit (where to go to the bathroom, sexual preference of the person 4 doors down).
If we can't figure out how to solve sustainability problems moving to another planet is just a change of scenery.