There are literally stickers on the doors of every bank explaining that depositing money beyond $250,000 incurs risk.
These naive smol bean founders don’t struggle to figure out the most tax advantageous way to get paid, let’s not pretend they’re too stupid to read a huge sticker.
The VCs who advised them to behave this way, if you ask me. In my ideal resolution, the government does their own valuation of the startups, rescues in excess of insurance the ones that seem promising, and proportionally takes the VC equity in these companies that got special rescue consideration. If the investment is getting bailed out, the VCs who started this mess shouldn’t get their equity returns. They can invest again in the next round if they really believe their convictions.
Practically, the VCs should have made some bridge loans to solve the short term problems while we wait to see what comes out of receivership. Some did, and good on them for sticking with it in the hard times.
All investments have risk. This is one of the risks associated with meager yields - very rare but possible wipe out. If depositors were always guaranteed then what would prevent high-risk banks that promise huge yields but ultimately just rely on govt backstopping when they go under. Who pays the cost in that case? Even 'guaranteed' investments like cash or treasuries are not guaranteed, there are failure modes.
Leo and the rest of fedsoc have been doing this for a while. The article describes some of their successes and how they’re raising the stakes - are you responding to just the headline? What would be the liberal analog here anyway, there isn’t a single group with anywhere near the same impact on the judiciary.
And generally speaking the “liberal” cultural values are more popular, so there isn’t really a need for this kind of cultural revanchist strategizing/fund distributing. Which is why you see their projects focused on democratic means rather than the courts.
George Soros Open Society non-profit is the counter to this. It specific finds like minded organizations and political candidates and shovels money at them.
Nope. I was a gold bug once, but I don't think it's a good way to manage the total money supply: it can't grow as fast as the economy (labor productivity) does. I view money is a public social tool, and so it should be owned by all of us. Hence I am in favor of a citizens dividend for growing the money supply.
I do think you should be able to trade fiat into gold and vice versa tax free, so gold can be used for savings, which it is very good at.
In fairness, nobody agrees with me on this stuff, including myself at times!
> beating up criminals in my neighborhood isn't a "feeling" of security it's actual security
You’re describing police beating up suspects. Few people have a problem with police beating up criminals, our prisons being Exhibit A. Police beating up suspects leaves all of us less safe, because now anyone who looks like a criminal has an incentive to not cooperate with law enforcement, and be prepared for violent encounters with the state, which means more accidental violence with non-state persons.
It’s interesting that so many of the comments are basically, “it’s objectively better in every way, and the people in industry who aren’t using functional languages are too short sighted, greedy, or dumb to see it.”
Could be, but every time I’ve heard academics talk about an industry practice with this level of contempt, they’ve been missing something really obvious. What is it in this case, that syscalls break the purity model in any non trivial real world use case? That performance isn’t actually up to snuff with these runtimes?
It rings true though doesn’t it? At least in my professional experience, I primarily have run into the “fun” technical problems that require theoretical knowledge when working on infrastructure. It makes sense, because lower on the stack means higher leverage and fewer abstractions from the hardware.
That’s definitely how right wing media portrays them. The reality is quite a lot more varied and nuanced. You should talk to some undergrads if you can! You may be surprised that things aren’t as you’ve been told.
Yep same about police actions. Sometimes they are in the wrong and abuse their power, but for the most part they’re doing their job, but if you listen to the media they’re at war with poor people.
I don’t need the media to see that. For one, I lived it as a poor person. For another, not being poor anymore, I still see it on a practically daily basis when I’m at the office.
I remember back when the PoliceOne forums were public. They eventually made it invite-only because reading that stuff for a few minutes was quite sufficient to reach this conclusion with no media in the picture.
Alternatively, if you subscribe to your police / sheriff department FB or Twitter feed or whatever they have, they will often post news about training their staff at such-and-such academy or training center. Looking those places up and reading about what they teach, exactly, can be very illuminating - "killology", for example.
The problem with police brutality is not that it’s commonplace, but that there are no repercussions for it. If blatantly abusive cops were held accountable the issue would not be as problematic.
Musk is doing this now by holding up a refinancing of Twitter’s building by defaulting on the rent. Anyone with a big enough war chest can just stop paying, drag it out in court, and wait the owners out. And tech companies have some of the biggest war chests.
If companies want people to come into the office, they could pay them more and make it a condition of employment. In some sense they were getting a free ride for a long time by forcing senior employees to waste hours commuting for the benefits of in person mentorship. After all, upskilling junior engineers benefits the company much more than the senior engineer who is taking time away from doing stuff relevant to their own technical skills. Now the market has shifted: you want that, you pay more for it.
And make the conditions not suck! At the very very least this means an office with a door that closes? And ideally blinds on interior windows.
I’ve been remote for 8 years now and doubt I could ever go back, but above would be like a bare minimum to even consider - that and a minimum of a 25% comp bump over a remote option.
Maybe this is a good lesson that when you’re the CEO of major companies and publicly speaking with a member of a government engaging a genocidal war of aggression, it’s just not smart to make any of these “le epic trolling” style jokes
It is when life isn't serious to you, the rest of the world are NPCs in your personal video game and no matter how bad you fuck up you're set for life.
I never claimed Musk is a Russian asset - the market is signalling how it feels about Musk. I’m just suggesting that the kind of edgy ambiguity that lands with teens doesn’t tend to land with portfolio managers, as we are seeing. Obviously anyone who reads his 4 hour later follow up tweet knows he meant for the original tweets to be read as sarcastic. But it doesn’t change that it signals immaturity and instability in the c suite. You can disagree, but this is just not a motte and bailey situation, since I never made the original grand claim. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t think Musk is an asset at the heart of a big conspiracy. I think the truth is so much more banal than that - he’s just an impulsive guy surrounded by sycophants.
It's also an interesting take on how the 'end of the road' should look like according to different sets of people.
1) Some people believe it should be something akin to Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or the late Queen of England Elizabeth II.
2) Some others believe it should be something like LBJ, Donald Trump, Howard Hughes/Elon Musk.
In reality the 'end of the road' looks different depending on the prevalent personality of the individuals who are being blessed by enormous amounts of luck to get in such high positions.
The amount of conspicuous consumption is approximately the same and cuts across all the different personality types.
These naive smol bean founders don’t struggle to figure out the most tax advantageous way to get paid, let’s not pretend they’re too stupid to read a huge sticker.