loourr

It restricts you from doing them within retirement accounts. But the purpose of retirement accounts is to effectively save for retirement. Congress is basically saying we want you not to need us but we don't actually want you doing well with your investments.

I meant to imply within retirement accounts. But the intention of retirement accounts is to get you to save for retirement through investments. Private companies are arguably the most effective way to grow wealth. Congress is saying they don't want you doing this they only want you to have access to stocks and bonds because private investments do to well.

That's false. I know for a fact that tens of thousands of middle class people are doing this today.

Absolutely. You can own almost all kinds of assets in your IRA today excluding collectibles.

Congress is preventing all people from investing in private companies within retirement accounts, not just rich people. Adding the cap is fine but preventing private company investment is asinine.

This just isn't true. The bill also prevents you from investing in any private company of which you are a member, AKA a startup you work at. It also prevents you from any deals requiring you to be an accredited investor which means any Reg D which is how almost all early stage tech companies raise money.

No it isn't. It's worked for decades and the new forms of it are even more effective. Other countries are doing it with great success.

Nuclear fission can

Maybe 60 votes is a good threshold for fundamental changes to the way the country works and what we should actually do is remove the reconciliation loophole.

It's a complete farce to caricaturize the $3.5T reconciliation bill as a climate bill.

While there are some provisions that are intended to have an impact on the climate, like EV tax credits, these are poorly constructed and reward things like hybrid cars made in mexico and assembled by unions over electric cars made in the US.

It also fundamentally changes business incentives in many ways by increasing capital gains tax, increasing income tax, increasing business tax and requiring companies to take on a whole bunch of enforcement on behalf of the federal government for other social policies they would like to enact.

A bill that's intended to improve the climate would look like nuclear power plant regulation reform or removal of tax credits for oil production or a carbon tax. Not some poorly constructed bill that lines the pockets of their favorite special interest groups who recently got a fresh coat of green paint.

The fact that all of these companies oppose the bill should speak to how poorly constructed it is.

This article is hilarious. It's all about the march of 9's. Saying they're 99% done means they've only just begun.

Also it doesn't account for their model which requires paying engineers and installing tens of thousands of dollars in every vehicle to make it work. And the fact that they need pre established HD maps to do anything.

I'd be very careful with that. If you suggest something to a customer that causes them to loose money you can be sued and potentially held liable. Becoming an RIA would likely force your product to become hyper conservative in it's approach which perhaps is good if you're billing yourself as a bank account alternative, but also perhaps not your intention.

I think your criticism is a bit misguided. The FDIC insurance fund only covers a tiny fraction of bank deposits and if a single small bank had a run the fund would be insufficient to cover it's customer base. It also covers derivative losses before balance losses, so it's really more of a psychological tool then anything else.

Also banks are investing all of your money in highly illiquid risky assets (aka mortgages) so I don't see how this would ruin the economy or even meaningfully change the risk profile if adopted at a large scale.

After much debate my company recently switched back to a monolithic architecture and it may be the greatest decision we've ever made.

It dramatically simplifies so many aspects of development, which means you can have developers working on more impactful features and you don't have to worry about create a meta structure for keeping things consistent across all your micro services which is one of the biggest benefits I didn't see mentioned in this article.

And in many systems with interdependent logic (which ours is), not duplicating data and not having micro services calling other micro services in loops become incredibly difficult things to avoid.

I highly recommend the monolith for anyone who is not trying to cope with epic scaling issues.

All hail the monolith!

AET [REMOTE] | Senior Backed | React | https://www.aetrust.com/

American Estate and Trust is a self-funded, profitable financial company headquartered in Las Vegas, NV. Core to our products are our APIs which power our web applications as well as B2B customers who use our APIs to create their own products. We are building tools to empower people to better invest in alternative assets.

Apply Here: https://jobs.lever.co/AmericanEstate%26Trust

I've spent a lot of time hiring software developers and I usually receive about 25 male applicants for every 1 female applicant.

Achieving equal representation across the entire industry is going to be literally impossible without a huge influx of woman into the industry.

Further, because the big tech companies are pretending this is not the reality and strive to have equal representation in their workforce it means even sub par female developers are able to get jobs at the likes of google and facebook, further depleting the remainder of the workforce and causing wage inflation disincentivizing smaller or less well funded companies from hiring them because they can find better and cheaper male counterparts.

Not defending "bro culture" but I think the industry needs to come to terms with the realities of the situations. Legal action will do nothing to change this.

This reads like an obituary

Or it could be even better!

And we know markets to be efficient! Therefor P=NP QED

Good luck FinCEN, you've now just forced mixers to go dark. There's no killing them.

That's literally how they define inflation, so money earmarked for consumer goods is the most likely to "cause inflation" by the Feds definition

The Fed has confused inflation with the change in price of consumer goods, but this has led them to all sorts of flawed thinking.

In my view, inflation IS the debasement of the currency.

One would typically expect consumer prices to change when the currency is debased but when you literally define it as such you give yourself all sorts of additional levers to pull that distort the true situation.

For instance technology fundamentally drives down the price of goods. Have I reduced inflation by improving technology?

Offshoring manufacturing to get cheaper labor reduces the price of consumer goods. Have I increased the soundness of the money by doing so?

This author clearly does not understand software

Thanks for the explanation, those are good points. Though wouldn't the interior concrete not harden if it wasn't able to absorb CO2, since my understanding is that's fundamental to the hardening process?

And agreed that surface area would effect the rate of absorption. I understand it can take hundreds of years for concrete to fully harden, which I could see being effected surface area and ability of the material to breath.

One question I've had about cement being a major source of CO2 emissions that I haven't seen addressed anywhere is that my understanding is as cement cures it does so by absorbing CO2 which is what turns it into rock.

Does this not cancel out the effect of making the cement in the first place? And if not, why not?

Would love to know if anyone has a good understanding.

Change in price of the underlying asset doesn't matter/ change how much the government will take as a % over time.

If I have a 100 shares they'll take 1 share year one, slightly less year 2, etc regardless of the price of a share.

Beating around the bush Paul...

https://farmersfriendllc.com/ good example of a thriving company in the space, though smaller scale and no VC funding

What about a photon? If I use light to transmit information have I given it mass?

That's true, but it's just more difficult to distribute.