pcai

I understand where you’re coming from but the thing to understand is: most startups are incredibly marginal to begin with. If you tilt the field such that the entire distribution is now ~5-6% lower expected value for any given outcome, you can easily wipe out 80%+ of the startups that might’ve been “worth trying” but don’t make any sense now on a risk-adjusted basis. The entire asset class can become unfundable because the same money taking the same level of risk simply generates more returns elsewhere

This is wrong because you are speaking on an accrual basis but you have to consider cash. The cash (salaries and taxes) is paid out in year 1 regardless of what year you try to book it in your p&l statements

imagine in year 1 you grossed 100k, spent 200k on salaries, but the new irs rules say you owe taxes on 60k of profits.

To slightly simplify: it forces startups to pay taxes on profits that only exist on paper, with cash that is now much more scarce

sorry that happened to you. most likely they had a candidate deep in the pipeline with an offer out, and they were hedging their bets in case they declined. this is surprisingly common, though its shitty behavior for the recruiter to ghost you

one seldom-mentioned reason employers ghost candidates deep in the process SEEMS silly, but is selfishly rational: they are hedging their bets. you came in second place, and they are waiting to see if their preferred candidate accepts before getting back to you.

This is correct, but its uncharitable to call it a "hack" in many contexts. In oauth, for example, the access token / refresh token concept is literally spelled out in the spec. It's not a workaround, its how you implement eventual consistency in a loosely coupled system where the IDP can't push updates to clients because it doesn't know all of them by design

Actually no, me pointing out that “a literal anon in their armchair probably hasn’t thought through a challenging legal problem as thoroughly as the billion dollar company making the decision has” is not actually the same as saying that “every big company is infallible” but nice try

Consider for just a moment that they have almost certainly thought about this much more deeply and thoughtfully than you have

Just buy 2 of the 0.33L! You already did the math!

Author here. I will admit to having severe…let’s call it “gastrointestinal distress” the first 24 hours or so, until my body acclimated to the new diet. I would recommend easing into it over a few days, instead of the hard cutover I did.

Author here: I actually discuss theories for why ~500 calories ad libitum is satiating thus leading to weight loss. Your “shocking alternative theory” is already an embedded assumption and requires no discussion.

Performance reviews are precisely what you would NOT use to respond to market conditions, since they are about individual performance

There are like 8 billion humans alive at any given moment though, so this trick doesn’t scale for usernames. “Just be a little creative” has been extremely unlikely to work for years now at say…gmail

But their point was: FTX doesn't purport to be a bank

once inflation is embedded in the economy the velocity of money matters more than the supply, because the sticky price effect causes a spiral.

there will be enough money in that business's account because they will do the obvious thing and increase prices by 13% - after all, their costs are up and their customers are making more money so they can easily absorb the increase.

here is a simplified illustration of the phenomenon https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...

spot on about money velocity.

in addition to capital investment there's also a lot of impact by manipulating current consumption that responds to interest rates - like the housing market, which is mostly consumption.

inflation is only initially caused by money supply. once inflation expectations become embedded, it becomes a self-reinforcing perpetual motion machine.

e.g. imagine you negotiate a 13% raise because inflation was 13% last year (btw so did everyone else). congrats - everyone just guaranteed that they will have enough money to create 13% inflation next year, when the cycle will repeat

unemployment solves this because it's a "-100% raise" and takes spending power out of the economy

and inflation is generally considered bad because among other things it distorts markets for savings and loans

the scan as you shop technology is actually being phased out in many chains because the theft rates are unsustainable

some wholesale clubs apparently counter this by randomly auditing every cart as you leave, but that seems to leave the whole thing only marginally more efficient than traditional checkout

What would having a human in the loop accomplish in this case? Doesn't strike me as the poster child of a massive injustice

Its coinbase's money though? Are they not supposed to be able to specify how their own money is used? I'm just not sure I understand what the objection is. I don't endorse it but I don't see how this is inconsistent or hypocritical or legalized bribery or whatever

One could argue it is _theoretically possible_ that in expectation, occasional massive breaches of hugely centralized services will actually be less damaging than much more frequent but smaller scale breaches of decentralized secrets on account of the returns to better, compounding, mutually reinforcing security practices benefiting all stakeholders simultaneously

It is intellectually similar to the argument that "the cloud providers might have downtime, but they're probably going to have less than your private DC due to the economies of scale and returns on investment in reliability"

> while you as an employee can not support candidate B because of their trans healthcare stance - an imaginary distinction with no material political impact whatsoever.

To be fair, coinbase's opinion is actually that an employee cannot support candidate B WITH COINBASE'S MONEY.

> Somebody joked that it would be better if we just paid them that much to do nothing.

I know this is in jest, but in economics there's this concept called "induced demand" that comes to mind.

"Public extortion" would be an interesting challenge, as it would be difficult to solve the problem of "Hey why don't you also pay ME to do nothing too?"

Wait why? Do the students not have agency?

We all wish intel could release a processor with similar power consumption to the m1, but it's not like they just overlooked battery life. x86 is just fundamentally not competitive with arm on that front, unfortunately. The only advantage it seems to have from an architecture standpoint is raw performance

Most services, even if they aren't the size of Github, can't change their DNS provider on a dime.

This is wrong. If the variables that affect estimates can be predicted, then they can be accounted for.

Source: i used to work at an organization you've heard of that could reliably predict, down to the day, how long it would take ~4000 engineers to build and release the next version of its product. Three years in advance.

Uber moved from pg to mysql, not the other way around, and they very clearly explained the technical reason they did it https://eng.uber.com/mysql-migration/

You're probably thinking AOL. AOL bought patch.com for hyperlocal and failed, laid off staff in an attempted turnaround, failed the turnaround, then sold to it to an investment firm www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/01/15/aol-hands-off-patch-to-turnaround-firm-hale-global

FWIW our service is back up, and I'm hearing others are coming online as well.