smartbettor
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
33
Submissions
16
Member since
Aug 29
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
That sounds like a moat.
Comment · 4 years ago
prices have been going up for years. the standard is gone.
Comment · 4 years ago
FriendFeed! It was great. Pre-facebook you could build a feed using RSS from all your sources or comments off other sites. It was chronological and it excluded any algorithms. - If you subscribed to your friend feeds all the data slid into a chronological feed on your main site. It was the best, initially FB kept most of these features but in the end slowly killed them.
Comment · 4 years ago
<quote> Our main findings can be summarized as follows. First, parental income matters for the probability of becoming an inventor, and it does so even after controlling for other background Our main findings can be summarized as follows. First, parental income matters for the probability of becoming an inventor, and it does so even after controlling for other background variables and for IQ. Second, the estimated impact of parental income is greatly diminished once parental socioeconomic status and education, and the indi- vidual’s IQ are controlled for, dropping by 2/3rds. Third, IQ has both a direct effect on the probability of inventing which is almost five times as large as that of having a high-income father, and an indirect effect through education. Finally, the impact of IQ is larger and more convex for inventors than for medical doctors or lawyers variables and for IQ. Second, the estimated impact of parental income is greatly diminished once parental socioeconomic status and education, and the indi- vidual’s IQ are controlled for, dropping by 2/3rds. Third, IQ has both a direct effect on the probability of inventing which is almost five times as large as that of having a high-income father, and an indirect effect through education. Finally, the impact of IQ is larger and more convex for inventors than for medical doctors or lawyers </quote>
Comment · 5 years ago
thanks for mentioning the Berlin airport fiasco - I had never heard the story - hilarious and very troubling for those in Berlin!
Comment · 5 years ago
You miss the point of what’s actually happening on campuses.
If you’re white you are racist. You have to constantly prove you are not or you just are.
It’s an original sin argument.
Comment · 5 years ago
/s
Comment · 6 years ago
Someone using livejournal in 2020 is complaining that Apple’s new M1, won’t open their quark publishing app from 1998.
this is front page on HN?
Comment · 6 years ago
Why Sikorsky is not worth a lot of money money Sales were up 14% year of year... which is meh compared to tech companies. In 2015 they made $51 Million for the entire year. so their margins are tiny. crappy business to be in - but consistent.
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/201...
Comment · 6 years ago
No. but the investors would remove the founder.
Comment · 7 years ago
There's very little competition because Huawei spent the 1990's and 2000's stealing IP and driving competitors out of the Wireless business. In the 3G competitions there were over a doze vendors of equipment, today there are 3 of any real size. With rest either dead, merged because they couldn't compete with the theft of their IP or just not stepping into game.
When Huawei got caught the Chinese government would "delay" certification in china of the companies suing them for infringement. This would ultimately end with an "understanding" that "no infringement" took place and that it was a misunderstanding. Problem is that misunderstanding always included Huawei and always western telecom vendors. Cisco, Lucent, Alcatel, Seimens all sued Huawei at some point - and all settled. Nortel's old headquarters was so riddled with bugs that IP Thieves left in their network the Canadian Department of Defense when they took over the building ultimately delayed moving in because of what they found:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dnd-may-abandon-1b-move-to-for...
Huawei has spent the past half dozen years trying to clean up their brand by building consumer products, massive advertising sponsorships, free and paid for "next generation trials" and colocating research centres in the cities and countries where they drove the local competitors into the ground. They're now the only partner local research institutions can turn to for funding. They think they're like Cisco..
The Chinese governments IP transfer rules for international companies wishing to do local sales provide their industries a chance to Learn, coerce, steal and ultimately live within a protected market for these ill gotten gains. Is China buying Western competitors Mobile network infrastructure? Hells no. Why they're shocked that other governments are reacting in protectionist stance and ultimately questioning the interaction between the company and the government should become no surprise.
To begin with, most GP's have north of 5% of their net worth in the Funds or they're leveraged and borrowing against their homes etc. Partners usually are paying 30ish of their take home into funds.
Individual investments on a single deal are called an "American Waterfall" Vs a "European Waterfall," which is the whole fund. Each incentivization structure provides remarkably different issues. neither is perfect. BOth are prevalent in the market today.
Flat cost structure funds exist as well. Also, remember all fees are just added to the costs the fund needs to return. So VCs are incentivized to keep them low, they many don't do this.