Readit NewsDefinitely
> has less bullshit
Is there a Theranos equivalent in the world of math research? I'd argue "very different flavor of bullshit", but not necessarily less of it.
I wonder if a more mechanical solution wouldn't help:
Whiskers, like on a cat. A long enough set of thin lightweight whiskers could touch the wire before the propellers do, giving time for the drone to stop and change course. Essentially, giving the drone a sense of touch.
I hadn't thought about this in a long time. Looks like her lab is still going strong doing research at the intersection of biology and robotics on whisker-based sensing:
In comparison, the behavior in the kids shows from other producers (Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.) sometimes presents nasty behavior and name-calling as either inevitable, or something that's "someone else's problem": the instigator, if they're punished at all, might suffer the wrath of an authority figure, or simply bad karma.
My intent when choosing shows is not to hide the existence of bad behavior from children, but to teach them how to deal with it.
(My children also read Calvin and Hobbes. And watch those less-wholesome shows. And binge-watch MrBeast when I'm not around...)
Great recommendation. Angela Collier has a recent piece on kids' television and PBS in particular that is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGyatqN63RZ4
It's a complete waste of money and time continuing to mint such low-value currency. It can't be used for just about anything.
Unfortunately, I do see the problem with part of this. For a handful of items where it does matter, it will force people to use cards more if they want to avoid rounding. And the card providers already have a choke-hold on retailers, and the whole thing is basically a scheme that funnels money from the poor to the wealthy via interest and fees on the consumer, interchange fees, and rewards programs.
I'd say just drop the second decimal place and have dimes and half-dollar coins.
Most of my savings was in SPX (S&P 500 ETF), but over the course of the year I've been progressively exchanging more of it for GLD (ETF).
It's been a good strategy for me so far.
Is there a way for a small individual investor to "exchange" shares in stock without doing a "sell A + buy B" for which the sale of A is subject to capital gains tax?
Some cursory googling points me to "exchange funds", but those seem to be designed for accredited investors.
The advice I see for someone like me who wants to "re-balance" is just to change allocations for any new investments, but I'm wondering if there's an effective way to shift existing allocations without incurring a tax penalty...
https://little-book-of.github.io/maths/books/en-US/tales.htm...
I started reading it to my elementary-aged kids as a bedtime story! We're only on part 7/100, and I suspect we'll be too deep for them before long, but at least or now they're really enjoying it.
Deleted Comment
I personally know handful of extremely lucky people who spent their entire lives doing the exact opposite of this
There's a sort of "freeloader" problem, though, which is that the ones who get "lucky" don't themselves have to be making positive choices. In fact, being a selfish individual in a group of generous ones can be an easy way to get ahead - as long as you can get away with it without being noticed or punished.
Lowering the rent to fill their building reduces the value of that building, which means when they sell it, they will recognize a loss that is likely larger than many years of operating loss from the empty building.
Additionally, lowering the rent for that building will also reduces the value of other nearby buildings that have that building as a comparable property. Then when those buildings come up for refinance, either the borrower will have to come up with more funds so that the loan to value max isn't exceeded or the borrower will default and the bank will lose the income stream and be holding another property where their investment is more than the value.
Borrowers usually don't want to come up with more funds on a property where they're underwater and banks don't want to foreclose on property where the bank will be underwater, so it's in the bank's interest to let things be vacant and keep the valuations based on the previous rent, rather than lowering the rent and facing the music. You'll also see promos like first several months free, rather than reducing the rent, so you can report it's rented at whatever the headline rate is, even if the tenant is effectively paying much less; of course, the tenant will be looking for somewhere else to rent come renewal.
This is far from the only case in banking where taking some action on an asset that would otherwise be reasonable won't be done, because it would trigger a mark to market on too many other assets. Ex: you can't sell realize a loss to sell treasury bonds to satisfy cash flow needs, because you'll have to mark to market all the similar bonds, and then you won't meet your reserve needs.
This must just indicate that the model used to value the building is wrong, right?
I'd think insofar the value of the building is tied to the rental price, that value should naturally be a function of the revenue that the building can be expected to generate, which in turn is be a function not only of the chosen rent price but the likelihood of someone renting at that price. Why would a building that offers its units at $N per unit but can only fill half of them at that price be worth more than the same building filling all of its units at $N/2 per unit?
I suppose there's some wiggle room to account for the relative uncertainty in those two cases. But fundamentally the rental price is a choice whereas the value of the building is (or ought to be) based on a combination of the qualities of the property itself and what the market is willing to bear.