lsseckman

thank you!

[2017]

And why do many ordinary Americans experience such outrage on behalf of these multinationals

These are companies we all helped build in one way or another.

Their revenues boost our economy and pay for a lot of our govt services

you *could do recurring payments on Ethereum

Hearst did this, was some outcry about it

thaaaaaaank you

right, but the point is that those products won't maintain the company valuation.

lots of people have heard about AIM, but it didn't save AOL

If Google's asset was so powerful you'd think their other products would be doing better. (google+, glass, Allo, etc)

hey do you have any more info about this? have been wanting to do something similar.

Price wouldn’t drop unless you actually sold.

Are you aware of the book The Circle?

if you're taking 2009 as a reference point, you have to wonder whether Bitcoin is the CDO market, or the banks investing in those markets.

Both failed, only one was bailed out.

That's more of what I would expect!

Does that make it feel more like he was intentionally storing company files in a personal account?

"He [Lewandowski] also said it was common practice to share work files via Dropbox"

Always interesting seeing company employees not using their company's products. Shows that what some view as a monolith is a bunch of smaller bands of people.

oh, the script just executes a buying strategy that avoids short term fluctuations. It's not a profit-making strategy.

Are you actually sending that amount around?

http://www.baidu.com/ https://www.google.com/

I like this, I'm using it.

I'll contribute that this is a good way to explain to someone why corporations inherently care about their employees only to the extent of their usefulness.

this is a great point. And given market caps I doubt there are any sizeable funds invested, which may point to no bubble at all.

The logical conclusion to that would be that everyone wants to be an employee and nobody wants to be an employer.

This is interesting. Let's say there is a a r=g, to r is slightly less than g world. Then people would try to maximize employment & investing that income. Sortof double dipping. Am I thinking about that correctly?

Also, r<g doesn't mean that you're 'never' going to make more than the growth in output, right? Theoretically good stewards would outpace the market.

Don't know of any public, this is an interesting list of private (you're likely already aware of) https://baremetrics.com/open

In working with public company CFO's, I would guess 50% of the time & effort that goes into quarterly reporting is making sure everything came out of the SAP system correctly.

it was only after your comment that I'm noticing: talking, listening, understanding, seeing and remembering. I wonder if we're just too focused on doing things that people do.

Ahh interesting. I like the subscription model from the perspective of the business. Seems like it would prohibit signing up for the low-volume user though, right?

This is a really good example of the pitfalls here. All the way down to the micro-level decision influences.

Seems sails for ships this size would either be unwieldy in port, too little volume for much impact in locomotion, or too costly to maintain.

Wish they had gone into more detail on this. It seems like a solid competitive advantage for the owners to offer lower fuel consumption & therefore a cheaper charter. Easy.

Anyone know if there are similar upgrades that can be applied to smaller ships?

We'd be interested in that cost comparison!

That's not the point here though, is it

.

Point C being really important. Lose a lot of credibility if you lose your cool while doing that.