Panzer04

The magic of market pricing means people will figure out the best solution and optimise towards that.

Hot water heater tanks are easily one of the most obviously good applications of noon excess energy, and resistive heating elements might as well be free.

Yes, the government subsidies for home batteries specifically are a very poorly targeted handout. Unfortunately splashy policies like this are classic vote buying measures, even if economically they don't make much sense

- home batteries cost more

- homeowners buying batteries are already pretty well off on average

- a large portion of the population (renters) is excluded from the policy.

- prices are falling anyway so the subsidy is just a waste of tax dollars, arguably

- grid scale batteries are more cost effective and benefit everyone via cheap prices broadly, instead of specific homeowners.

Etc. but pork barreling be pork barreling.

The connection fee would also rise with less energy consumption/free electricity to amortize the fixed costs of the power grid.

Radio telescopes are hilariously massive. I'm not sure it'd be easy to reproduce their capabilities in space?

Starling is 10k satellites shared across the entire planet.

A satellite will serve thousands of customers, whereas a fixed line only serves one. I think 10k is also severely understating the cost per customer. There's like hundreds of metres between these houses at a minimum, and in some areas possibly Kilometers from house to house.

I'm a bit surprised you don't run into things like this then :). Do you use GDB and the like at all?

Or do you mean all the windows specific stuff etc, I guess I was more imaging the call stack etc.

No insult was intended XD

Not a programmer?

Paying for T2 means the whole team gets faster T2s. Giving them resources lets them build them faster because their own resource generation is less than that of the team.

T2s are so good this is an objectively good tradeoff. It's not about compensating the eco player (though that does happen by extension) its about getting your whole team faster T2 mexes.

Well, they can't sell out the game code. That's not how GPL works.

This very much depends on the lobby. I don't think this is unique to BAR either - it's just that 8v8 is the most popular mode.

Lots of players mean more chances to get a toxic guy who doesn't recognise their own faults and blames others.

I actually just don't really agree about the assertion on player slots. If anything, the better players get the more likely they are to play a front slot, because they have an outside influence on the chances of their team winning.

Depends, they've gone to pains to ensure the indexes will buy as share lockups end. It's dodgy no matter how you look at.

The one saving grace is s&p isnt changing anything, and they were by far the biggest index.

That's why broadcom bought the company he went with instead.

Isn't this what all of the big companies that spend a lot on R&D and engineers promise?

And then the reality turns out not to be the case - you have to continuously spend on R&D to avoid getting your lunch eaten by someone else.

This isn't a social media network with lockin either. People can and will just switch to whatever whenever they feel like it. Maybe it becomes a defacto standard like google but if someone is much better than you, well...

I think the more salient points for the paywalls is people want pay once access everything, instead of piecemeal. I would certainly be happy to subscribe to "news" in general, but not a dozen different providers for one article apiece.

People use LLMs for news?

As in, current indexes perform that much worse. Frontrunners around index rebalancing etc. SpaceX is the same idea, just way more obvious. People knows what the index funds are going to do, and so they exploit that.

The alternative funds are a little pricier, but not so much so as to negate the inherent performance advantage. Typical cost ratio is 0.1-0.5% depending on the niche (wide indexes are cheaper, more niche things like small cap value cost more)

Starling is an entirely different beast. However, it's addressable market is not unlimited. More people live in urban and suburban areas with fixed line internet than ever - the only real customer base is rural, and it still needs to compete with conventional mobile internet.

Starling is indeed very good, but it alone doesn't get spacex to 1.75T

That's very cute.

I wonder how much more complicated and effective statistical predictors are.

Because the rules are clearly going to result in lots of buying pressure from passive indexes on a large stock with little time for price discovery.

Come on, let's be adults here. Is there a prior example of this on a comparable scale?

It's already well known that passive indexes bleed ~0.5% performance solely to front running and exploitation from the market. This is that writ large.

The real issue is that existing shareholders will all be eyeing each other wanting to exit at the highest price it'll ever be. That's a lot of selling pressure.

I can't imagine many people seriously believe SpaceX is a business worth 1.75T.

0.8% of drag is a lot when you can do basically the same thing by not strictly following the index.

There are funds from Dimensional and Avantis that are basically just index funds but with a bit more leeway to avoid these obvious pitfalls, and from what I saw they do perform approximately 0.5% better per year.

Yep, this.

A unit (multi-dwelling property, not necessarily an apartment) might cost 650k here, but only rent for 500$/w. 25kpa is a 4% return on that principle, before expenses (property management, maintenance, rates/taxes etc).

The only context in which it makes sense is if capital gains/land value goes up, which it has historically but that's no guarantee.

Houses make all these numbers even worse - higher upfront expense (land value) and lower rental yield (they rent for more, but tenants prefer a better house/dwelling more than they care about a back yard, so cost goes up more than rent does)

If you're upfront about the provenance and amount of effort that went into it, is there really a problem?

I feel like the issue is people contributing code they don't understand and presenting it as if they do.

If he gets awarded a huge number of shares for hitting market cap goals, existing shareholders are diluted to his benefit.

How is the framing wrong?

Basically a merger.

When the numerical differences are that big I'd always be a little suspicious of something not operating correctly.

I haven't seen ARM outperform X86 by a margin that large anywhere else.

This is a wild take.

In theory, competition is what prevents this. If these small companies can sell products that provide more value then consumers buy the alternative.

I think the problem today is that it's extremely difficult to tell when you're buying quality or a brand. If there's a 40$ and a 100$ backpack, often the 100$ version does not actually have meaningfully improved quality - just better marketing.

The same goes for tons of products - brands nowadays are something companies build while they're young and relentlessly smash into the ground as they age because the value you're destroying isn't obvious. Shareholders get good results, and objectively it's probably the correct financial decisions for the company - doesn't make it any less shit.

LLMs really like the "it's not this, it's that" framing. The short punchy lists/sequences also feel off to me.

I think it's also the reuse of the same strategy repeatedly throughout the article. I think most human writers often feel put off if they use the same literary device too much.

I don't buy that there's a segment of customers willing to pay to get rid of some but not all ads.

The entire point of premium as it already stands is ad removal. None of the other features are relevant (I don't even know what they are)