jeroboam
1yr ago
The weird thing is that Amazon's E-commerce arm isn't even that valuable. The bulk (maybe 80%) of Amazon's market value comes from AWS. E-commerce is now being recognized as a not-particularly-good business, and Amazon loses money on it.
So spending billions on a device that encourages buying stuff on Amazon wouldn't be a great idea even if it worked, which it doesn't.
jeroboam
1yr ago
Not OP, but I believe the same thing, more or less, so I'll give it a shot.
"Renewable" energy is likely not a good long-term solution to our energy needs. It is very poor at providing stable base load power. At one point yesterday, something like 45% of Germany's power was generated by coal. Contributions from wind and solar were essentially zero. The very expensive renewable infrastructure built throughout Europe is only utilized to a small percentage of its capacity. Meanwhile, nuclear plants are being retired. We are treated to absurdities such as France being fined for not reaching its renewable goals despite having by far the lowest carbon intensity of any major European country. Or forests being felled in the United States to import "renewable" wood pellets for power generation in Europe.
A renewable power transition will require vast amounts of copper, lithium, and other base metals. It is very unclear where these metals will come from. As batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels age they will require disposal and replacement, meaning that this is not a one time cost either.
Various sources of power have different returns on investment. For something like natural gas, you might get 100x the energy from burning it than you need to acquire it. For solar, this number is much lower. Exact estimates differ, but the true number is probably much lower than overly-optimistic government estimates, somewhere in the low single digits. Building a less efficient energy infrastructure will stifle development in the third world and lower standards of living. Of course, people in China and India understand this which is why they are building new coal plants hand over fist. One new coal plant raised eyebrows as it was built to support the massive energy needs of the nearby solar panel manufacturing facility.
In my belief, nuclear power is the one and only solution to solving the energy crisis while preserving the environment. Sadly, the environmental movement has prevented nuclear energy from reaching its full potential. In my opinion, organizations like Greenpeace bear a higher share of responsibility for climate change than oil companies like Exxon.
I'm sure I'll get pushback on a lot of this, and I could do a better job with citations, etc.. It really deserves an effort post but buried in the thread this feels like the max level of effort that can be justified.
Going off memory, last quarter they were negative profitability on non-AWS. Cash flow numbers are going to look even worse because of that ungodly capex.
Edit. Found the slides from their latest earnings. North American e-commerce segment had losses in each of the last 4 quarters, with the most recent quarter being -412 million. International might as well get axed. Earnings are hugely negative and getting worse. Last quarter was -2466 million. Maybe you are looking at older pandemic-era data?
jeroboam
1yr ago
It's worth pointing out that Twitter is still fully operational two weeks after losing some huge percentage of its staff.
People on this very board were calling for near-certain failure due to key staff leaving. And while it's too early to say definitely, I think it's not too early to start updating in the direction that no, these staff were not in fact necessary to the continued operation of Twitter.
I'd imagine that the administrators of a university are even more unnecessary.
jeroboam
1yr ago
So you actually can fire every single one of your local operations staff that aren't relevant to the fundamental operation of the system and still make just as much money in a pinch; yeah, you run the risk of losing institutional knowledge when it comes to improving or modifying the system...
And that's why the claims about Twitter going down just made no sense to me. If the engineers were good and they made a stable system, they would not be necessary for the continued stability of that system. If the engineers were bad and made an unstable system, then good riddance surely.
However, on the issue of improvements, I'd also like to note that, as a Twitter user, the rate of improvements to the system has actually increased since Musk took over. What I'm not seeing is a lot of people updating their priors based on Musk's success. Perhaps it's natural to stick one's heads in the sand and think "not me - I am necessary".
jeroboam
1yr ago
A few years back I was listening to a Freakonomics podcast where the guest was talking about their "pet play" fetish where a bunch of gay men would pretend to be dogs and have sex. Oddly, the host of Freakonomics was very supportive, almost going out of his way to endorse this bizarre lifestyle.
How did we pivot so quickly from "whatever happens from closed doors is your own business" to celebrating sexual fetishes in public and if you don't like it you're a bigot. Normal people don't take talk about their fetishes at work.
What's doubly-bizarre is that if a straight man did this at work, he'd be taken to HR almost instantly. "You see, Alice, I practice a lifestyle of enjoying having sex with attractive big-breasted women."
jeroboam
1yr ago
Here is how I read your post. "Let's just assume that the Jews burned down the Reichstag. What does that say about international Zionism?"
The biggest story here is how the subreddit would instantly jump to this ludicrous assumption despite absolutely no evidence.
jeroboam
1yr ago
Does anyone have any general advice on picking an engagement ring? I'll be proposing soon and I honestly have no idea where to start. I assume that walking into a local jewelry store is the easiest way to do this but also by far the most expensive. Is there a better way?
jeroboam
1yr ago
It could be considered theft of wages.
I work, and rather than immediately spend my money, I save it in a bank account hoping to spend it later. However, due to negative real interest rates, the value of my savings goes down 40%. And what's more, it is reckless government spending that is responsible for much of the devaluation.
Sure I could gamble on stocks, or hoard gold in my basement, but one of the advantages of living in a society is the ability to save my wages for later when I need them. Losing this ability is a strong negative. Just ask people in Argentina or Venezuela.
jeroboam
1yr ago
For most of the 20th century, real interest rates in the United States were positive.
Expanding our window, yes life was nasty, brutish, and short for most of history. But the value to society of sound money is great and its loss should be avoided or at least mourned.
jeroboam
1yr ago
My girlfriend is a manager at big tech co. She spends hours per week agonizing over the wording on various documents that she has to submit to the corporate bureaucracy. (Yes, we both know this is pointless). I showed her chat GPT and we both agreed that it could speed up the process of producing nice-sounding boilerplate.
jeroboam
1yr ago
I am not confused by what banks do, and I doubt the OP is either. Yes, I am aware that it is not banks that control interest rates, just as gas stations do not control oil prices. I was speaking in the context that everyone understands we are really talking about Federal Reserve and government policy. If not, I apologize for contributing to a banal discussion about banks.
jeroboam
1yr ago
Your comment makes it seem like you have an expectation that you ought to be able to put money in a bank account and thereby be able to exchange it for certain particular goods at particular rates at some future time that are similar to the rates when you put it in.
And that's just what I was able to do for much of the 20th century in the United States. Sometimes, I would even came out ahead.
I am confused by your objection. Perhaps you don't realize the role of the Federal Reserve in controlling interest rates. For example, in the Post-WWII period, the fed used Yield Curve Control to maintain low rates in the face of high inflation. This allowed the government to deflate the substantial debt it had accrued during the war. The patriots who bought war bonds lost out big time.
While the Fed is not explicitly using yield curve control now, the unprecedented government stimulus during Covid drove real interest rates to extremely low levels, reaching something like negative 8% at one point. Europe, of course, is much worse, and countries like Argentina, Venezuela, and Turkey have destroyed their currencies through political interference in central bank policy. That is starting to become a possibility in the United States as well with both Trump and several prominent Democrats calling on the Fed to lower interest rates to give a short-term boost to the economy at the expense of savers.
jeroboam
1yr ago
You sound pretty sure, but the U.S. did indeed use YCC to maintain hugely negative interest rates after WWII.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/august/what-yield-curve-control
YCC in the U.S.
The U.S. incurred massive debt expenditures to finance World War II, and the Fed capped yields in order to keep borrowing costs low and stable. In April 1942, short- and long-term (25 years and longer) interest rates were pegged at 3/8 percent and 2.5%, respectively. These rate caps were largely arbitrary and were set at approximately pre-1942 levels.
As the U.S. continued to incur debt, the Fed was obligated to keep buying securities to maintain the targeted rates—forfeiting some control of its balance sheet and the money stock. The public generally preferred to hold higher-yielding, longer-term bonds. Consequently, the Fed purchased a large amount of short-term bills, which also increased the money supply, to maintain the low interest rate peg.
After the war ended, FOMC members grew more concerned with addressing the rapid inflation that materialized. However, President Harry S. Truman and his treasury secretary still favored a policy that maintained YCC (which also protected the value of wartime bonds by implying a price floor). By 1947, inflation was over 17%, as measured by the year-over-year percent change in the consumer price index (CPI), so the Fed ended the peg on short-term rates in an attempt to combat developing inflationary pressures.
In combination with rising debt from the U.S. entering the Korean War in 1950, the peg on longer-term rates contributed to faster money growth and increased inflationary pressures. In 1951, annualized inflation was over 20%, and monetary policymakers insisted on combating inflation. Against the desires of fiscal policymakers, interest rate targeting was brought to an end by the Treasury-Fed Accord in March 1951.
Maybe not officially, but they absolutely have been controlling (or at least strongly influencing) interest rates via setting the FFR and also QE. If the Fed didn't step up to buy trillions in treasuries during Covid, who would have bought them at the comically low interest rates that were on offer?
And why do you think the market will jump 6% on news about Fed policy? The Fed has immense power.
jeroboam
1yr ago
This assumes we even believe his origin story of arbitraging Bitcoin between Asian and non-Asian markets. There's a good chance it was a simple ponzi scam right from the get go.
jeroboam
1yr ago
I once asked a similar question and was very disappointed because everyone said "just stop drinking" and didn't provide any actionable advice for how to mitigate the damage.
In the spirit of answering your question in the spirit in which it was asked, it sounds like you are consuming 1000-3000 calories of wine every day. This is a lot, and many alcoholics are malnourished because they get such a high percent of their calories from alcohol. So I guess try to get enough protein and vitamins in the food you do eat, and avoid high sugar foods which create a lot of the same problems as alcohol. I'd also recommend frequent blood testing to keep an eye on the damage and see if things are getting worse.
Now I'm going to be annoying and share a couple resources that helped me stop drinking. I haven't had a drink in 2 months which is the longest I've gone without drinking since college, although I was drinking only 3-4 drinks a day as opposed to 10-20.
The book that I read which helped me quit was "Allen Carr's Easy Way To Stop Drinking".
It's weird that it works because there's not much to the book to be honest. But a lot of people have said that it helps, and it worked for me. The key realization is that drinking doesn't help you. It only temporarily solves the cravings caused by drinking, but then creates more of the cravings later. I was not as heavy a drinker as you, but for me the physical cravings stopped after about 1-2 weeks. I still get the urge to drink from time to time, but there are no longer any physical cravings.
I have switched to non-alcoholic beer and mocktails which fulfill some of the "need something to do" at night urges. This also helps at restaurants, bars, and other places that I used to associate with drinking.
There's also a whole school of people who quit using the Sinclair method. This involves taking a drug called Naltrexone before drinking which prevents you from enjoying the euphoria of alcohol. I think there is merit to this approach. As a comedian once said, "the best part of cocaine is the drive to my dealers house". If you reflect, you'll notice that the only truly pleasurable part of drinking is the first sip. Your brain feels good before the alcohol even hits your system. Drinks 2-infinity only make you feel worse. So breaking this connection can remove your addiction.
So far, I'm not missing alcohol. I've lost a little weight, but the biggest difference has been in sleep quality. I now sleep soundly throughout the night and wake up rested.
Best of luck!
jeroboam
1yr ago
Strong agree, and it really shows you how wrong most people's model of capitalism is.
Company executives operate for their own benefit, not for the benefit of shareholders. Unless you are Blackrock or something, a shareholder has absolutely no ability to voice their concerns at all. All they can do is vote for or against a slate of directors chosen by management. Nevermind that most people own shares in an index fund anyway.
Company executives have no desire or need to answer to shareholders. They act for their own social and financial aggrandizement. For a CEO to keep their job, it is necessary only to please the board of directors - a group consisting of social elites often chosen by the CEO themselves. That's why a company can "shoot themselves in the foot" by turning away paying customers with no consequences whatsoever. And its why Twitter can have 1000% as many employees as it actually needs. Because there is no need to return profits to shareholders. Shareholders have zero power and will take the scraps they can get.
Shareholder capitalism is an illusion.
jeroboam
1yr ago
Plus, SBF did legitimately stumble into profitable bitcoin arbitrage opportunities;
I made the point below, but how do we even know this is true? Given what we know about SBF, isn't it more likely that he was simply stealing user funds from the start?
Think about it logically. Which makes more sense?
-
Obvious billion dollar arbitrage opportunity is discovered by SBF and no one else OR
-
Known fraudster steals user deposits for his own purposes
jeroboam
1yr ago
I hate to break it to you, but you probably won't be satisfied with 2 million or even 5, 10, 20, or 100 unless you are very good at not playing status games.
Once you get to 2 million, the amount you think you need will be 2x your current wealth or the wealth of your richest friend, whichever is greater.
jeroboam
1yr ago
Oh, I forgot to mention. Switch to white claw or another alcoholic seltzer instead of wine. It has fewer calories and lower alcohol density.
jeroboam
1yr ago
I guess I object to the whole idea. It might work for some, but working a FANG job for 15 years and then quitting probably isn't going to fulfill you unless you have something much better you'd rather be doing.
It's not about possessions. It's trivial enough to live well on 100k a year. It's about status and a sense of purpose.
jeroboam
1yr ago
graduated high school at 11
It feels like the average IQ 130 person could master the necessary course work at age 11. This says more about their parents then anything.
jeroboam
1yr ago
Probably most parents sensibly recognize that this would be terrible for a child's development.
It's also nowhere close to Tao levels. Tao scored a 760 on the SAT at age 8. So figure he probably could have gotten the score of a typical high school graduate at age 6 or something.
The standard red-pill take is that women seek to be hypergamous, meaning that they want to "marry up".
In a traditional society, women are forced to marry their equals. But in the modern society, where the heart knows what it wants, 50th percentile women pine over 95th percentile men.
Being men, these 95th percentile types are more than willing to bed (but not settle down with) 50th percentile women. This creates the illusion that these men are available. And once you've experienced the thrill of dimple-chinned Chad, why would you want to settle for soft-chested Sheldon? The fact remains that most women do eventually settle down with their equals, but are often unsatisfied emotionally and sexually, and resent their husbands for it.
From the male perspective, the solution is to better oneself so that women view you as a superior match. Failing that, marry a woman who is inexperienced enough to not know the difference.
I don't necessarily endorse all of this, but I think there is a lot of truth to this viewpoint.
More options
Context Copy link