simon_

Gandhi, though the claim may be exaggerated.

Hard to find a good source, but here's something: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2521/did-mahatma-ga...

Relatedly: DO NOT CHEAT ON YOUR TAXES. If you have any BTC profits and do not report them to the IRS this month, they are reasonably likely to catch you and make an example of you.

A decline in market value of more than $10B, implying that for the $2B FB spent, they will receive hugely negative value.

Seems extreme, although it was a bad day for tech stocks anyway, so the portion of the drop attributable to the acquisition is surely smaller.

Anyway, the market seems to be communicating that not only does it think FB got bad value, but that this deal is bayesian evidence that it is being badly managed.

EDIT: I still don't think 100% of the decline is attributable to the broader market move, because TWTR and certainly KING should be more volatile than FB. But, yeah, the story might not be as clear as I thought.

Conditional on having an illegal policy, enforcing said policy in an effective manner similar to your enforcement of other (legal) policies should not earn you extra condemnation.

Although I get that these sorts of agreements may well have been illegal and unethical, all this outrage over the attitudes of the executives seems overblown to me.

Try putting yourself in Eric Schmidt's shoes: from his perspective, the greed of an individual employee to generate recruiting commissions by violating a strict policy endangered a key strategic relationship. This could obviously not be tolerated and the lack of a strong response would make enforcing the whole landscape of mission critical policies harder. These guys HAVE TO think of the system before the individual or the system will not work.

And in general, in any industry and any role, if you start a fire that the senior management team 10 levels up has to put out... you will expect harsh treatment.

Raising a $250MM IPO is amassing a war chest. If that becomes harder, they become less competitive.

Is this partially an attempt to throw a wrench in the gears of the Box IPO? If there's going to be a price war anyway, better to start it now and prevent a competitor from amassing a big war chest.

I don't understand how much Box is a (potential) competitor in this market, so could be way off base.

EDIT: Some of this answer maybe still applies, but basically I seem to have misread the question. Apologies.

HN has in fact changed quite a lot over the years and PG has been visibly tweaking it continually. I guess you are asking specifically about why the graphic design has not changed much...

Pretty clearly modernity per se is not worth optimizing for. I have zero inside knowledge, but some thoughts on what the current design might be optimizing:

1) HN probably benefits from discouraging undesired users in a variety of subtle ways. Like the trivial Metafilter subscription fee, an unadorned layout may create a low bar that discourages extremely casual users. PG is pretty explicitly NOT trying to rapidly scale HN.

2) The YC partners have a lot of opportunity costs for every hour of work. Current layout good enough? OK, on to the next problem...

3) Quick load times, works in any browser/OS/device.

To answer your question with a question: what do you think could be functionally improved by a redesign?

I just read Ben Horowitz's new book, and he describes taking Loudcloud public as a Hail Mary because private markets were essentially too smart to give them any more money at a horrible time (while the original dotcom bubble was in the middle of bursting).

Clearly Box is in much better shape, but it's not too hard to imagine that maybe they are rolling the dice on an IPO during a super-hot market in response to feedback from private investors that they were going to have to raise a down (or otherwise disappointing) round.

I was going to write a response disagreeing based on the assumption that, like any normal exchange, Derivabit would fully intermediate the trade. But after reading the guide, I realize you are correct! They explicitly say the maximum you could ever recover on your put option is the 20% margin.

In my opinion this is extremely misleading and to call such a contract a "put" and hide the real definition in a FAQ is straightforwardly wrong.

I will be interested to see if this works. Best of luck to you, but I am skeptical.

For an options market to work you need both buyers and sellers of volatility. Is anyone really going to show up to sell vol here? At what kind of price?

Even if we assume that BTC is infinitely liquid and sellers of options could do theoretically perfect dynamic hedging, my guess is that implied vol is so extremely high that prices will look crazy and expensive to potential options buyers.

When you say "nobody benefits", you are leaving out the employees, who will see higher wages as a result of competition for their services.

In fact, if you only consider the companies (and not the employees), this kind of competition is negative sum, not zero sum, which is kind of the point.

This will definitely not happen. There is no way it would win the support of BAC's shareholders and board.

He removed the enamel from his artificial cap?

There is not actually survivorship bias in the DJIA, because changes to its composition are not retroactive. If an index member goes bankrupt, it will absolutely bring the index level down substantially.

Doesn't the strong response demonstrate that the offering price was too low?

I understand your sentiment, and don't really disagree, but keep in mind that it's basically impossible to innovate or build wealth under unfavorable institutions. So... some value probably "should" accrue to nations.

Perhaps NPR celebrates inverse April Fool's Day (1/4)?

This is not a correct understanding of "market cap". Goldman's market cap includes the value of ALL shares, not just the shares available for public trading.

This has to be mostly mortgages, which makes it a little misleading.

I really disagree with this. Far from being more than anybody needs, a million dollars is actually not enough to secure a dignified existence in the US. Sure... a "trip to Thailand" doesn't require a million dollars, but what if you want:

Not to face bankruptcy if a major health problem arises? Not to worry about the cost of college for your children? To own a small home in NYC or SF? To afford competent legal representation if the need arises?

And that doesn't even touch the reasons people want to be rich - like private jets and angel investing and art collecting and space tourism, etc. Have some imagination!

Um... I don't see $/tab specified anywhere. Perhaps the distribution of "tabs" will just decide how they allocate their $1,000,000?

I don't think this is right... FICA is capped, so my social security contribution should not scale linearly with income.

Any chance you can find a buyer?

"Things that kill children" is not identical with "things parents should worry about". For example, immediate mortality is probably not parents' major concern with drugs (#5 on the list).

This "infographic" does not seem to contain any information.

Keep it in cash! USD if you are in the US. In the bank or in T-Bills.

Any angel or VC would require you to do this. Basically all serious business do this.

If you have a solid business with even a small chance of requiring additional investment in the future, it is crazy to be screwing around in the markets.

I use that software every day. Want to get in touch with me? (Email in my HN profile.)

Why do you say "INTL" in the headline? It's only one letter shorter than the complete name of the company and the stock ticker (if that's what you were going for) is INTC.

What is this process designed to optimize? My guess: it's massively arbitrary, which would be really shameful given the impact immigration policy has on lives & families.