hushpuppy

> says Lindred Greer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

I wonder how many successful businesses this guy founded, created a culture of success, and handed it off to other people to see the company continue to grow.

I am guessing the number is pretty darn close to "0".

Because that is the only sort of "wisdom" I care about in this context; Success in making businesses.

Every business is different. Size matters. Bureaucracies don't scale.

Thinking that some self-reported information from a Dutch insurance firm is going to provide guidance to a auto manufacturer, Waffle House, or flooring manufacturer is like believing that all you need to do to make a sqlite database scale is by increasing the cpu count for your server linearly with database sizes.

Works fast with 1 core and 100MB database? Then it'll work exactly the same with a 32 core server and 3200MB database.

> Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes.

If you eliminate gas and coal powered plants then the costs of nuclear plant lifecycle is incidental compared to economic losses that a country would encounter if they relied on solar and wind.

The dirty secret about "clean energy" is that it isn't actually very clean. When you eliminate big coal plants and try to use solar or wind, what you are actually doing is moving your dependence from coal to natural gas.

Those wind farms and solar farms require significant investment in numerous smaller style natural gas plants in order to function correctly.

So, right now, when people think they are moving away from fossil fuels they are really just moving to natural gas that is supplanted by solar and wind when conditions are ideal for them to work properly.

If you want to eliminate your dependence on natural gas, then, the only feasible option is nuclear.

The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors. The design was bad to begin with and it really didn't have any sort of containment or bunker or anything like that to speak of.

This is why they go on and about the "sarcophagus" required to keep it contained. They had to build a proper containment unit after the fact. You want that stuff built BEFORE you have a nuclear reactor. Not wait until after one blows up.

I, very literally, would love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard if it's off the correct design. A design that depends on physics to be safe, not human operators.

Which is entirely possible. You can build a nuclear reactor in such a way that if the worst possible case happened it would meltdown and dump it's guts into a container. Then just sit there until it cooled to the point were it could be processed correctly.

Yep. It's impossible to give a definitive answer one way or another.

If you want to live in that place for years and years and years then it's kinda dumb not to buy the house.

But if you want to get out of that area once you get your career more established or something like that then just rent.

You can go ahead and stuff your down payment into some bond ETFs or something like that if you don't want to get a house right away. I use Vanguard "inflation protected" ETFs, personally. You won't make a whole lot of money, but if Fed bonds take a huge shit your money isn't going to be worth much anyways. So it's one of the safest place to put it and still have it easily accessible.

> Can you explain this a bit more. What is your definition of short term and by investments im assuming equities. Generally for a less than 5 years the advice is not to invest downpayment money in risk assets.

A down payment is different then closing costs. The money you put down on the house goes into the house. So effectively you retain the value of the downpayment in the equity of your house. So it is not "lost".

The closing costs are the costs of actually getting the loan. That is money you spend in order to get the loan. That money doesn't go anywhere except into taxes, bank fees, real state fees, titling, etc etc. So that is money that simply 'evaporates'.

You can use that money for purposes other then buying a mortgage.

When deciding to rent vs buy the argument for buying a home is that you get equity in the home, were as with renting that money is gone for ever.

So say you spend 10,000 on closing costs and make payments of 3000 dollars a month. Out of that payment the vast majority goes to taxes, insurance, and interest payments. You may only end up with 300 dollars in actually equity.

Versus

You spend 3000 dollars a month on rent, make zero equity, and get to keep your 10000 dollars.

So if you live in a house for just 3 years then sell it... You might get 10,800 in actual equity in your house.

So over the course of 3 years you only actually earned 800 dollars.

Is that 800 dollars more or less then what you could of gotten if you invested that 10 grand into something?

Most people assume that buying a house is a no-brainer because over the years the value of the house rises. So even if you don't put much money into the equity you can still earn a sizable profit selling it.

But that is only true if there is no bubble and people can afford to buy your house in the future.

Really whether or not to buy a house ends up being a math problem. Were do you want to be and what are the chances of making money by renting vs buying.

If you are planning on living somewhere for 10 or 20 years then closing costs end up incidental and you win by buying pretty much no matter what.

> 'economic rents' are not the colloquial 'rent' we pay for housing we don't own. economic rents are UNproductive, meaning simply income produced by ownership itself, rather than in the productive delivery of service (in this case, housing). LVT only seeks to tax away that unproductive part (economic rents). the productive part would include the costs of mortgage(s), insurance, utilities, upkeep, and a small profit (aka risk premium).

Except the LVT premise is bullshit.

Lets say I have a house I rent out for 1800 dollars a month. About 500 dollars of that will go to taxes (income, property, etc).

Out of the rest I take 600 dollars and am in the process of fixing up two more houses that I bought from a tax sale that were made unlivable through crackhead squatters.

So that leaves me about 700 dollars more. Out of that I need to save probably about 300 dollars a month to cover costs associated with owning homes. Such as the need to replace roofs or water heaters or hire arborist to take down dying trees before they destroy my neighbor's property, etc.

Then that leaves me with 400 dollars that I reinvest in other companies. So it goes to doing thing like buying bonds, etc.

The only thing that is "unproductive" here is the money being paid to the federal governemnt to go murder brown people half way around the world.

The entire intellectual basis of this "Georgian" stuff is completely bogus. The theories about monopolies are wrong. The theories about how to solve the tragedy of the commons is wrong as well. The economic efficiency theories are wrong, etc etc etc.

Glad we live in a era were accusations and rumors are not used as political weapons against individuals.

> You are conflating different things here.

No I am not.

Race is a political grift. It has been a political grift since the beginning. It's a way for some individuals to exploit social divides for personal profit. It's a political gamesmanship.

It was a grift when "white" was first legally defined during the colonial era. It is a grift now.

The greater wedge they can drive between people the greater the potential for personal profit and political power. If you want to eliminate racism in the USA then the worst possible way you can do it is by trying to force some idiotic and unrealistic notion of "equity" on the american people in the name of racial injustice.

> Ignoring that slavery touched the entirety of the continent, I'm going to guess that means your German ancestors ended up in the Midwest. Probably on Native American lands.

By that logic there isn't a square inch anywhere on the planet that wasn't "touched by slavery".

Which renders the whole notion pretty much irrelevant and diminishes the role of slavery in USA history.

I am in the USA.

My ancestors escaped from Prussia and immigrated from Sweden in the late 19th century, well after Slavery and the Slave trade was over and lived in hovels dug into the side of hills in the wind-swept and tree-free plains of the mid-west. In a area on the North American continent that was never touched by slavery.

They became farmers and worked the land. My father didn't even have central plumbing for a great deal of his childhood. Had to piss in buckets when it became too cold and too dangerous to go to the outhouse in the winter.

Yet I have plenty of people all over the planet that I should be ashamed to have European heritage living in the USA and that it's my fault there are a lot of poor black people. And that I owe them money and should "check my privilege" because of it.

Asahi Linux will never work as well as a normal Linux machine within any sort of reasonable time frame. Even with Intel CPUs the Linux experience on Macs is kinda shit.

If your goal is to have a Linux workstation then buying a Mac is pretty dumb.

They have a mini PC "Star Labs Byte".

Basically a laptop sans keyboard, display, and internal battery.

Docker doesn't allow for LSP servers in my text editor. Asdf "just works".