tfehring

There was originally a $7,500 federal tax credit available. Tesla's eligibility for the that tax credit was cut in half at the start of 2019 and fully ended at the start of 2020, so anyone buying in 2020 or later would have paid the sticker price, unless they benefitted from state-level tax credits.

I think the Model Y qualifies for the new tax credit that just took effect, though there's an income limit and other restrictions.

Definitely more common outside of tech. It looks like 72% of 401(k) plans have a vesting period, with the most common durations being 3 or 5 years. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/most-workers-wait-years-for-...

It's cheap for weed, but expensive for a relatively high-volume part of a relatively easy-to-grow plant. Imagine seeing an $800/pound price tag in the produce section of your grocery store.

Thanks for the link, I just applied as a mentor!

I went to community college for free on Pell grants and then to a similarly priced state school, though not in California. It was a fine option for me and I’m doing well for myself almost a decade later, but it wasn’t a free lunch. I had a hell of a time getting my first job out of college, in no small part because my community college did absolutely nothing to equip me to apply for internships at the start of my junior year. And missing those years with my eventual graduating class definitely left me with a shallower network than my peers - to this day, I’ve gotten every job I’ve ever had through a cold application. Not to mention the signaling impacts. It’s not hard to imagine these drawbacks costing me six figures in earnings over the course of my career.

For people whose best available alternative is not to go to college at all, I’d recommend community college + 2 years at a state school with no hesitation. In other cases I don’t think it makes sense to paint with such broad strokes - it depends on the particular student’s career aspirations and the particular college’s aptitude at positioning students to succeed in that field.

It's definitely harder to count the time spent speeding when that speeding doesn't end in a crash, but the NHTSA still tries to do it [0]. About 19% of vehicle miles are driven at more than 10 mph above the speed limit on highways, somewhat fewer on city streets.

[0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812485...

I think the point is more that most of the hard work behind Twitter isn't in writing the "fancy" code at all - it's in developing the infrastructure that allows that code to safely propagate across Twitter's massive network of servers, and abstracting that complexity away so that the developers who make the "fancy" user-visible changes don't have to worry about it.

> I do not believe there is any credible theory that any investor could possibly have been unaware of these issues.

I'm not convinced that the issues that caused Binance to back out even existed the last time FTX raised outside capital (March 2022 according to Crunchbase). My understanding is that in March, FTX had a basically normal balance sheet for a crypto exchange, with roughly enough non-FTT assets to balance against its liabilities.

Alameda was an over-leveraged crypto hedge fund, which in hindsight wasn't great news for Alameda's investors or creditors. But there's a world where Alameda goes to zero but FTX is mostly fine. After all, FTX would automatically recalculate margin levels and liquidate assets as needed every 30 seconds. If they did that with Alameda like they would have for an arms length counterparty....I'm not going to say that FTX would have been unscathed - a lot of those loans seem to have been secured by FTT, plus Alameda seems to have made up a lot of FTX's trading volume - but the end result of incinerating billions of dollars' worth of customer deposits wasn't inevitable. IMO, FTX's fate wasn't sealed until its management team built a backdoor into its systems to siphon customers' assets to Alameda. And that probably didn't happen til summer, months after its last funding round.

No, I wouldn't pay for this. I like the idea, but I don't think it actually solves the problem that it's trying to solve.

As with actual VC investing, I think the hard problem is deal flow, not identifying the best prospects among the deals that reach you. The data you provide might be useful for identifying the most promising companies on your platform. (Though I'm skeptical that it's even useful for that, since I understandably don't see actual revenue or user graphs.) But that doesn't do me much good if the best startups aren't actually using your platform.

Now, if there were some reason to believe that all the best startups were posting jobs on your site, based on past exit data or whatever, you'd have a compelling reason for me to use it. But honestly, if you could do that, you could capitalize on that ability far more effectively by starting a VC fund instead of a job board. As it stands, I'd probably be far more likely to pick a winner by just picking a top VC firm and going down the list of their portfolio companies.

Unrelated to my previous comments: I'm at a big public tech company, so I'm not sure if I'm your target audience, but I generally just ignore recruiting messages from private startups because the comp is so unlikely to be competitive. I'm sure others will feel differently, but I personally can't see myself using a startup-focused job board that doesn't have company-provided salary and equity numbers.

It's easy to see how FTX's assets could be "worth" $16B in the absence of any real money coming into play, but I don't see how they could get to $16B in liabilities that way. The most obvious possibility would be if their liabilities were also denominated in thinly-traded shitcoins, but at this point it seems clear that that wasn't the case.

> Some residents in the small rural town of Lockeford have expressed concerns about privacy and safety. Amazon insists the drones are safe.

I guess one for two ain’t bad.

Most tech companies have four-year vesting periods. Lots of people at my current employer, which IPOed in 2020, are still vesting shares from pre-IPO stock grants. As a result, those people have a very strong financial incentive to stick around.

Stripe is a rarity in that it issues one-year equity grants, which would make it more susceptible to brain drain after an IPO compared to companies with longer vesting schedules.

For cases that Prophet doesn't cover I recommend bsts [0], which is much more flexible and powerful. Anything too complicated for bsts, I'll typically implement in Stan.

[0] https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bsts/bsts.pdf

Quine Relay, "a Ruby program that generates Rust program that generates Scala program that generates ...(through 128 languages in total)... REXX program that generates the original Ruby code again."

https://github.com/mame/quine-relay

(HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6048761)

Yes, though you have to take the square root of the sampled radius for the resulting distribution to be uniform on the unit circle. (The area of the donut with r>0.5 is greater than the area of the circle with r<0.5, but the naive implementation would sample from each of those with probability 0.5.)

It’s still a useful illustration, though, since MCMC samplers used in practice do end up throwing away lots of the sampled points based on predefined acceptance criteria.

The drop in revenue per user is mostly due to regional mix. DAUs are up 34% Y/Y outside of North America and Europe, only 7% Y/Y in North America and Europe. Still, I think the answer is probably "aggressively cut expenses" and/or "position itself for an acquisition."

I'm skeptical that layoffs are the real reason behind this, since it seems like a pretty ineffective way to trim headcount. Even if this results in an additional 10%[0] of employees getting "partially meets" where they would have previously gotten "meets," that'll only generate what, 2% additional attrition per year? I know "tech layoffs" generates more clicks right now than "tech performance management," but to me the framing here just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[0] The article says they're going to be enforcing their "10% to 15% target" now, and presumably some people are already getting those ratings.

I think using Android can be either a low income signal or a Grey Tribe [0] cultural signal, and people on dating sites might want to screen out either (or both).

Like you said, it’s about arbitrary norms, but we make assumptions about others all the time based on which norms we follow. An analogy from a different angle is that texting your Tinder match from an Android phone is a bit like applying for a tech job with a @hotmail.com email address.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

It's not just a single drive-through window either, even in small towns in the US there will be multiple lanes at the bank drive-through, with pneumatic tubes to send your money and documents from the car to the inside of the bank [0]. When I was a kid, I loved watching the container get sucked through the tube, plus they'd usually send back candy with the receipt.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5pVJ8ID0DQ

An analogy that may resonate with readers here is that targeting zero fraud is like targeting 100% uptime in a computer system. You evaluate the business trade-offs and decide how many 9s of non-fraud are appropriate, knowing that (1) each additional 9 is more expensive than the last but only gives you 1/10 of the benefit, and therefore (2) infinity 9s (equivalent to zero fraud/100% uptime) is a useless aspiration for all practical purposes.

For reference, 16.7% of adults aged 18-25 and 55.1% of adults ages 25-34 are living with a spouse or other partner as of 2018, down from 39.3% and 81.7% respectively in 1970. By my math that alone is responsible for an increase in demand of close to 10 million housing units. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/11/cohabitation-...

Of course, young adults living with roommates or parents have absorbed some of that difference, but I'm sure many of those people would live alone if housing prices were still at 1970 levels.

You can use git hooks or CI tools to unzip xlsx files when they’re committed and run an autoformatter on the resulting xml files. The xml diffs aren’t the most readable, but they’re usable.

There might be a subreddit for your specific business-facing role, e.g. /r/ProductManagement and /r/FPandA are both pretty good in my experience.

There's a fan-made version (I think from xkcdsw) with a happier ending https://i.imgur.com/VbKV9DF.jpeg

It was also signed by Marc. It would be perfectly fine for him and his wife to have a difference of opinion, but if Laura holds a view that Marc holds to be actively harmful, as he has argued in the past, it's still hypocritical for him to endorse that view. Though I think it's more likely that Marc is just the more typical "Yes In Your Backyard" kind of hypocrite.

I'm not sure the math is so easy. Even knowing the direct cost savings in hindsight, engineers' time is expensive, and it's not obvious that the ongoing engineering cost of maintaining Trino on an EC2 cluster would be that far below $22k/month. Even if you get a net cost savings on an ongoing basis (which, granted, you probably do), you may have a long payback period for the initial engineering time spent evaluating solutions and getting the deployment spun up.

And that's all with the benefit of hindsight - it's hard to know a priori how much cheaper your own deployment will be compared to a managed service or how long it will take to implement. Of course, anecdotes like yours help with that, so thanks for sharing your experience!

There's definitely risk in the sense that YC invests in relatively risky companies, and anything that negatively impacts the long-term value of those businesses ultimately impacts YC. From, like, an accounting perspective, I have no idea when YC marks gains or losses to market or whether that timing coincides with other market participants or the companies themselves.

Either way, in the context of the top-level commenter's question, it's worth emphasizing that a change in valuation isn't a cash flow. YC doesn't get an influx of cash to invest when the value of its portfolio companies goes up, and it doesn't have to give up cash that it could otherwise invest when those companies' valuations go down.

$125k * 400 companies/batch * 2 batches/year = ~$100 million/year deployed just during the batches. On top of that, they often participate in later funding rounds to maintain their 7% stake. Also, it takes a long time for those investments to generate cash. Many of the most valuable YC-funded companies are still private, and even for the public ones I doubt YC unloads its whole stake as soon as it can post-IPO.

There are well over 100k US-based software engineers at the five FAANG companies alone, plus a long tail of other companies that compete with them for talent and offer similar (and in some cases higher) compensation. All of those companies can go over $250k in total comp for the equivalent of Google L4, i.e., one promotion above entry-level.

Looking at this further, I think both I and the author of the posted tweet both initially misinterpreted what these graphs represent. The horizontal axis is the date at which the forecast (or nowcast) was made. The Atlanta Fed made estimates for Q2 GDP every day in July, which is what was reflected in the archived version of the page. They didn't make a forecast of Q3 GDP until July 30, which is why there aren't earlier data points in the current version of the graph. That's also why the latest estimate in the archived version is -1.2% while the estimate in the current version is +2% - it's not a change in estimate, they're just measuring different things. Makes perfect sense when you know what you're looking at, but easy to misinterpret without context.