BlandDuck

Ham radio also has the FT8 protocol which is optimized for bad signal to noise environments, but has low bandwidth. However, using this protocol a 10Watt radio has global reach under the right conditions, which is pretty mind boggling.

About encryption, the US rules are that you can use digital protocols but you must publish the specs so anyone can, in principle, decode the signal.

This is a very good point. I think key issue is that it requires time and effort to evaluate and understand the final product.

Before I starting reading something to understand it, I want to have a sense that it is likely going to be worth my time and effort in the end. The more time and effort the author has put into the piece, the more likely it is that it will be worthwhile to read it.

Exactly. That's what the index funds would have had to do as well.

> I always found this statement to be rather wishful. Individual lowering of prices makes sense if and only if your competitor is capable of saturating the market. Otherwise, demand elasticity becomes very relevant. Sure, your competitor may take the larger share of the market, but then you can compensate with higher per item profit.

You should check the distinction between Bertrand and Cournot competition. Bertrand competition is price competition where the competitor can saturate the market, as you mention. Cournot competition, on the other hand, captures your intuition of competition on quantities rather than prices.

It is a concern that this could simply reflect changing naming conventions for private funds. There is nothing that requires a fund to use the "Fund I" convention.

Would it be possible to confirm the trend using Form ADV instead of Form D filings?

Standard theories of production clearly distinguish between fixed and variable costs. Moreover, it is well understood that this distinction depends on the time horizon, with more costs being variable for longer horizons.

Moreover, concepts like economics of scale (with low marginal costs of producing an additional unit, as you state as an example) are well understood for certain products in certain circumstances.

The distinction between and relevance of average and marginal costs is taught in undergraduate classes.

Whether or not you can draw a nice diagram of supply and demand is pretty irrelevant for professional economists and our understanding of markets, their dynamics, and equilibria.

I judge technical explanations of audio gear by their description of balanced signals. A common error is to focus on the positive and negative signals having opposite polarity, which is entirely irrelevant for canceling out interference (it may improve headroom, but what is actually important for eliminating common mode noise is to have identical impedance with respect to ground).

I would say this text fails this test, which gives me pause. The description is: "The two conductors carry the same signal, but with reverse polarity (meaning that one conductor carries a signal that is the mirror image of the other). If external noise and interference enters the cable, it will probably affect both conductors equally."

Exactly, if it had been obvious at the time that "the market" would deliver a better return, for certain, then nobody would have bought bonds at those prices.

Then bond prices would have declined (and their expected returns or interest rate would have increased) until, in equilibrium, the anticipation was that the stocks and bonds would deliver comparable expected risk-adjusted returns.

In finance there is an ongoing discussion of whether the small-cap premium still exists. For technical discussions, look for the terms "SMB size factor".

"Estimate of the remaining time before universe decays expected to be revised 10^76 times before its finally over"

(conservatively assuming the estimate will be revised about once every hundred years as we learn more).

Too many investors, too few seats

You may want to look up the words "rams" (plural of "ram") and "humor" in an english dictionary.

Totally. Also, an attenuator is easier and cheaper to implement, because it just requires normalizing V+ into the jack plug. An offset requires an adder.

My preference is: attenuator < offset < attenuator + offset. I see no benefit of having to remove the knob to get to the jack as proposed in the article.

I love old, well-written technical books, like these. There is something about the language, directness, innocence (for lack of a better term) and careful arguments that I find incredibly satisfying. They are not afraid to go technical and deep, when needed. They have humor and feel personal.

Somehow, I rarely find this in modern technical books, but it is hard for me to figure out why. Maybe something is lost in the "pedagogy" of many modern textbooks.

I'll read such books about pretty much any topic just for pleasure. An all-time favorite is "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche, although a very different topic, obviously.