timavr

Pretty common in game dev, but it is hard to say.

It is not like you can do the same project twice, one crunching and one not and see what the results are?

In terms of health, definitely not good.

Also from economics, makes no sense if you are not a founder.

Applies to a lot of stuff as well.

Racism is just one type of filter(color), but in real life, there are many more: age, education, sex, nationality, prev employers, place of birth.

Hyper casual is a gaming industry concept, which basically means F2P, pick up and play mobile titles which are focused on users that have a couple of minutes here and there.

Apple Arcade is focused on a premium gamer who generally pays for stuff before trying.

It seems newsworthy. Hot IPO, a lot of money involved. Also, it is public stock now, so daily fluctuations mean quite a lot. If it popped 10% today then there would have been articles about that too.

The game sold super well. Team still owns all the IP.

Was overhyped, but it probably 50% is press fault.

Private universities are private as in control, not in funding. John Hopkins is a private university whose research is nearly 90% funded by the government. None of the private universities can exist without government funding.

So when Harvard professor whose salary comes from grants lectures a donor's child, who didn't get the grades to be there in the first place, it raises a question, if the arrangement makes sense.

People who control the money, generally have a lot of influence, especially when money is running short, regardless if they are on the board or not.

Probably, because for 99% of people, this is not a goal. Most people want physical/mental health and tonnes of dopamine.

I don’t get it. How does it help to avoid principal agent problem. The link also states it as a fact with no explanation.

I think Google used to be "cool", but it is more prestige now. There is definitely still cool areas which Google works on(AI, self-driving), but overall, if you are working on Gmail, there is nothing cool about it and the main motivation is not to make Gmail more awesome, but to get paid and beef your resume for future work opportunities.

Unicorns vary, but mostly they are B2B enterprise companies, which do very boring stuff day to day. But something like Discord will be exciting for many people to work at.

Somehow the jobs which you want to do the most in tech screw you the hardest.

Like if you do back-end database boring stuff of moving data around at random Enterprise X, then you can charge through the roof because they know that the only reason you are doing this job is for the paycheck.

But if you are working on video games/Tesla/Other cool stuff and obviously passionate about the mission, you get screwed on compensation and if things go wrong, treated inhumanely.

Also, why treat people like shit when they get laid off. Can't just manager meet with the person and say, hey our division got cut, I am sorry it turned out that way, happy to help out with the job search.

As far as I understand VCs(General Partners) don't hold investment money. They just get paid fees and have a mandate from Limit Partners to invest, so when they want to invest, they just call on LPs to transfer the money.

I imagine each VC fund has a multitude of LPs and they each manage cash based on their own strategies. The key is that they have enough liquid assets to meet the obligations in a timely manner.

Obviously, each fund is set up separately and might have a different structure.

Is it just me or it feels like valuations on these deals is just to make LPs paper profits?

Where the reality is that if SoftBank does not provide funding, WeWork is not making it to the choppa?

Why is it a scam?

I don’t see much wrong in terms of the financial process.

People default on the mortgage but keep living in the property. That’s not the way to go.

The problem is that most likely foreclosure is not profitable for investors, so in order to collect money, they have to make life miserable for people. But this is just messed up, because mental health is as important as physical health. So if someone stresses people out to get their money, why the taxpayer/family had to get stuck with economic externality?

Imagine instead of stressing people out, we cut their limbs if they don’t pay.

The whole premise of good/bad money is misleading.

There is legal/illegal, which is super clear.

Good/Bad is really up to individual and company to decide. But if someone took Saudi money which US government takes every week during Bill Auction, then they shouldn’t be judged worse then the government itself.

And the US uses this money to pay teachers and firefighters which finishes in pension funds, which at this point is clean money, according to Fred.

Not naming LPs and stating that they are awesome is just using your influence to whitelist market participants and is very self-serving.

Large pension funds have a lot of problems too, like embezzlement/corruption/failing fiduciary duties.

So it is pretty binary, either you are transparent or you are not. And if you are not, claiming that you are better then others, is just marketing.

It is pretty low to use someone tragic death to score some cheap deal flow points.

I think where US struggles is general education of population and engagement with political process.

Press is subjective and you need engaged critically thinking electorate to see when BS is being presented to them.

Basically fake news is on us, not on them.

USA has a lot of problems, but the fact that free press exists is a miracle.

Calling people out by name that they are hypocrites by taking Saudi money and basically funding murder would get you killed in most countries.

I think he is just saying, that Startups are overvalued or worse might be not long-term viable because unit economics are out of whack.

But investors are happy to invest across different stages as long as those startups show growth.

It is a much easier decision to fund something at a later stage then pull the plug, because new funding round generates paper profits. Where is if it is a zero, you don't look that good in front of LPs.

It is the best system invented.

Like maybe someone learned mind control and made El Chapo do it. But when he is not under mind control he is 100% law abiding citizen.

It will be a crazy defense, but it will be up to jury determine if that is the case.

Or another scenario is that El Chappo had no choice because rogue officials in the US demanded him smuggle drugs to the US or his family will be killed.

They still will hunt down the informants or anyone who might be one in case of the assasination. It is not like informants will give out the info in return for nothing. They will probably want money, witness protection and one way ticket to the USA.

Also cartel knows who are the key witnesses. It is not like the El Chappo discussed his business with infinite number of people. I would say 10-20 max if not less. So they just make a list and see who is present/not present and where are their families.

Though I am not even sure prosecution needs star witnesses. I don’t think there is a juror left who has no opinion on El Chappo.

The bigger problem is that dealing with El Chappo, killing or otherwise, is not actually solving the problem of cartels having nearly infinite resources to pursue informants/witnesses.

In a way dealing with cartel is like dealing with a state actor, but without traditional tools because they are outside the international law.

The only way is legalize the whole thing to bring drug trade into legal framework.

In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.

Due process and presumption of innocence.

As far as US judicial system is concerned Osama and Pablo are innocent.

It is always better to try people in court then kill them, because it limits the chances that someone innocent can be killed.

This is very honest revenue.

Interesting arguments people had when the world was young.

If I do multiple commits into main a day, will probably get a visit from CTO.

Will test tomorrow.

Can you link the game directly. As I press the heading and it goes to the game.

I am not sure work is the right place to express your opinions on controversial topics.

It is different though sharing your thoughts/interest with people you trust at work.

Also there is assymetry of impact of ideas between two sides.

Independent person would probably say that conservative ideas are Perceived to be more controversial by other side then other way around.

Like gun debate. If co-worker comes to work and says guns are bad. Ok whatever your opinion man. But if they come to work and like yo guns are awesome, 2nd amendment bros. I own one, then for other side this person might be perceived as threat.

They probably need to talk to Apple regarding their 5 star review on iOS.

I feel the article is super misleading because extreme wealth creation can only come from monopolies.

The capitalism is made up of monopolies. Starting from biggest companies in the world to nation-states which have a monopoly on pretty much all territory they control.

If you don't have a monopoly, then creating wealth (extracting rent/ high margins) becomes impossible, so a lot of innovation exists to maintain monopolies.

In the end, the capitalism is a system of control with capital allocation as the main control mechanism.

It just has inputs and outputs and we as humans have opinions about what is good or bad, but it is very dangerous just to state that some system is inherently good when the worse atrocities in the world happened in states which were capitalists: Nazi Germany.

Soviet history is very tricky subject to study.

Russian State aka Kiev’s Russia started in Ukraine, so saying Russia starved Ukraine is like saying USA starved California, if somehow California got independent and the rest of country blocked food stuffs.