101–110 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there are two people, and one bitcoin in the world, and one person buys the bitcoin for $1 and sells it to the other person for $2, who has lost money?
Up to now, the second person is $2 short.
Or is the point that between quotes in an illiquid market, everything is worthless?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Up to now, the second person is $2 short.
That seems to privilege dollars as more "real" than crypto in some way. Or is the point that between quotes in an illiquid market, everything is worthless?
Consider instead that there is one bitcoin, that one hundred people sell to each other in a long chain, for varying prices, playing a small fee each time. If you add up the cash inflow and outflows, you will get a net negative per person equal to the average fee paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You already stated it yourself: He has lost $125, until he sells. That is an average negative. Money in: $50+$75+$100+$125 Money out: $50+$75+$100-3*fees You can continue this chain indefinitely, and the missing final term will get smaller and smaller in relation to the total. The limit of (money out - money in) / transactions goes to simply minus the average cost of the fees. So, a net negative.
>He has lost $125, until he sells Everyone who owns an asset is not selling it at this exact moment, so it is worth nothing and there is a 100% loss according to you? This is a possible definition of "loss", but I think it's clearly non-standard, and not useful. You can't just pretend that's what other people mean when they talk about losses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptocurrency trading is, because of market fees and mining fees, a negative-sum game. That means that on average, you will lose money if you play. Unless you are a miner or run an exchange, of course.
I mean in that sense so is the normal stock market....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On average people have made tons of money. The earlier involved the better. If the market is growing you will see values increase.
Welcome to how pyramid schemes work. The money gained is when you pull out and other people buy in
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theres a peer pressure factor. While i was personally relieved to be back in office. I have also seen a few colleagues able to jump to more lucrative deals without uprooting their lives, which i find a bit intriguing. Im happy where I am at, but I have done a lot of good work (basically recycled our entire infra and migrated to a WFH culture) and havent seen a raise in 3-4 years.. So it has me thinking of putting fee…
If you’re not getting a cost of living raise each year, you’re effectively being paid less … as you become more experienced.
I transitioned them to more of a "devops" style roles, pushing hard on Automation, documentation, removing silos and cut a lot of their big time suck things like refreshing non-prod environments down from 1 week to around 45 minutes. Even in the lead up to the pandemic, we saw a WFH demand coming, recognized we lacked the VPN capacity to do so and used FOSS tools to spin up mutliple new VPNs to handle a couple different security boundaries in a matter of hours to allow many to work from home.
We have rebuilt a lot of the "bones" of our infrastructure from day 1, mostly in our virtualization stack and DB's etc. And most of my team had gained some trust in my decision making. Externally we generally get really solid remarks in our ability to support staff/products and our resposniveness.
On the one hand I kind of know why i was snubbed for the job. Im younger (in my 30's) and it was a higher level role. And i have spent the core of my early career moving every 3-4 years as trends change to allow me to rebuild new things rather than "tending sheep" which im sure some saw as more a flight risk in a position where the previous holder was there for 30 years. It also came at a cost as I floated from more virtualization/storage roles to networking and then security centric leaving me more of a "master of none" in the eyes of many.
That notion is a large part of what has kept me here. Im relatively happy and i do feel I probably need to have a few more years of "stability" under my belt. But at what cost. I dont live in a tech center like the bay area, nor do i have any desire to. But that brings its own cultural differences.
The pandemic seems to have changed much of that. I would now be able to stay where I'm happy, in a relatively small town that lacks a "major" tech sector but possibly see a larger bump in compensation and get some more challenging or fulfilling roles offered. My current company, including my boss, seems to think I am here for the long term...I just am not so sure myself.
Again this is totally anecdotal, but I can totally see why others would be thinking the same way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the relationship is going to be that minimally frangible, people will hesitate to relocate to a company town at great impact to their family, only to repeat every time a shadow crosses some book. Most tech jobs are not in single-company towns, they are in tech hubs, which have a large number of alternative employers.
Is this technically true? Is there data on this? Just speaking for myself as a resident of Ohio, there are plenty of tech jobs between Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland. Not as many as in the tech hubs, but there are forty-seven states that aren't California, New York, or Washington.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking why they leave is risky. You might learn things you don't want to learn.
Standard advice is to be falsely positive in exit interviews. The internet is awash with guides to not burning bridges etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Help me out here. I know nothing about cryptocurrency, but as something in limited supply that is exchanged for money it seems that on average people could earn money as long as the price keeps rising. Say there are four people in the crypto market. Joe buys crypto for $50, sells it to Steve for $75, who sells it to Sarah for $100, who sells it to Dale for $125, who holds it. Three people have earned $25 each (minus…
You already stated it yourself: He has lost $125, until he sells. That is an average negative. Money in: $50+$75+$100+$125 Money out: $50+$75+$100-3*fees You can continue this chain indefinitely, and the missing final term will get smaller and smaller in relation to the total. The limit of (money out - money in) / transactions goes to simply minus the average cost of the fees. So, a net negative.
My own personal data point is that, with COVID, some tech companies are embracing remote work and suddenly I can enter a much wider and higher paid job market without having to relocate. Companies that aim to get butts back in the office are going to have a huge brain drain.
I don't advocate for full office neither, a hybrid model like 3 days home 2 days office, or whatever combination of this I think is the way to go.
Also, a lot of people forget that the World is not comprised of just office workers. There are jobs that simply can't be done from home.