xenihn

Because I was broke

I got my current job thanks to having one. I probably wouldn't have a tech career without hackintoshes being a thing.

False equivalence. You're comparing liquid assets with an illiquid one here.

My networth increased by $600k in the past year, but my actual income after taxes was a quarter of that. I haven't sold and collected gains, but it still feels like I "made" that much money in that span of time, especially since most of the appreciation came from RSUs. I'm just choosing to not convert it to cash.

"A few months" is an incredibly long time when the gap is widening on a daily basis.

It comes with test suites, so that gives you a base to start from. You can at the very least do trial-and-error and come up with some heuristics on the fly. You're at a huge disadvantage to someone who has some familiarity but can convincingly play it off as being a newcomer, though.

I'm interested in knowing more details about this if you happen to have a post written up somewhere!

I don't mean this to be a callout, but what do you mean you led teams as an L4? Even if you were unofficially leading them, you get caught in the politics trap of not being able to claim any credit for having done so, because that means the higher levels in the workstream weren't doing their jobs, and you can't write that down or say it outloud. This is a problem in every hierarchical organization, and learning how to navigate it is unfortunately a part of the leveling process in itself when you are starting from a lower level versus being hired into a higher one.

Why can't everything you just described be done by someone who doesn't have the CEO legal title? The CTO can be the CEO in title, but fulfill the duties of both, with consultation from the "CEO" (pick whatever title you want). Basically inverting the non-technical-founder / CTO relationship, in favor of the technical founder who needs non-technical expertise and guidance, but still wants to maintain overall control of the business.

>Consider this: You aim to buy all 100 units, and then you can charge whatever rent you like, right? What happens is sellers discover you are doing this, and then raise their asking prices through the roof. The result is it costs you so much to get that monopoly that you cannot hope to be able to rent at a profit. Especially if it is possible to create new units for the purpose of selling at a high price to you. And it is possible, unless the government prevents new construction.

This doesn't matter to you as a buyer when the money you're spending is either borrowed, being printed out of thin air, or both.

Not true.

Do a google search for "rent-fixing algorithms".

If you own enough homes in a rental market, you can determine the market rate. An empty house has value simply by depleting local housing stock, since it is giving you greater leverage to drive market rate up.

Of course its less value than actually having it rented, but its still value. Tax code will also allow for softening the loss.

I'm going to pick an arbitrary number here that's loosely based on top 100 tech companies by market cap.

If you are working for a company that employs at least 1000 full-time engineers, I think you should consider joining a team where every project involves AI in some way, if you aren't already on one. Whether its owning AI tooling, or developing client features that use AI directly, or even just prototyping AI concepts that never launch. The safest roles like research and directly working on the models are out of reach for most people due to competition and position scarcity, but that's ok. There are so many positions downstream from those. The key thing to look for is to be in a position where your AI features can actually turn a profit, which might be rare, but not as difficult to get as an upstream role. But its still fine to be in a role that isn't profitable.

I think AI-adjacent roles will either be the first or last fulltime SWE jobs to go during the next tech downturn, which I don't think we are in yet. I am betting on the latter, because I think corporations will continue to reroute more and more funding towards AI all the way down. Even if the current AI cycle ends up as a failure, we are already in the sunk cost stages of commitment. There is no turning back without anything short of a total collapse.

Do you know a specific place in either Anaheim or East SJ that has it?

El Salvador hasn't issued fiat since 2001. Any other presumptions as to why its a fair demand?

No, I went under significantly multiple times, including 80%+ losses that eventually reversed on some. Though these dips wouldn't have been as drastic if I had not stopped DCA purchases.

I've done it repeatedly over the past ten years while DCA'ing. I basically made my own custom funds with 5-10 stocks, set daily purchases for a specific amount, and didn't think about it. Unfortunately I didn't invest enough each time for the amount to be significant, and I also stopped DCA'ing as soon as I couldn't resist checking, saw that I had reached or was approaching a 10% loss in my overall DCA portfolio, and stopped the auto-buys because I felt like I was starting to burn money, when this was actually the best time to continue investing. I haven't sold anything either though. Overall I'm up 80%, which is only $50k.

I think DCA is the most effective investment strategy. Unfortunately I don't have the discipline to keep it up during a downturn. Next time I try it again with picked stocks will be my 4th time, but for now, I'm doing it with index funds. I'm not going to feel as inclined to pause my purchases during an index fund downturn.