971–980 of 1000 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Financial security in the Bay Area requires a house there ($2-3M, nowadays) plus $COST_OF_LIVING/4%. This is easily $5M net worth. It's in "two Googlers and a successful exit at some point earlier" territory. Granted, this threshold is less than $10M, but it isn't orders of magnitude less All of which is to say that it is basically impossible to stay in the Bay long-term unless you make an absolute fuckton of money.…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your shares did well in of the biggest untinerrupted market bull runs in history????
Survivorship bias is a hell of a drug. The real test to see whether it's wisdom or luck is to predict the next Tesla. I don't think many people who point to their Tesla stock performance as vindication could come up with a repeatable theory of investing. If they could, their TSLA gains would be nothing next to their next investments. That's how I know people who make that argument don't actually know anything. It's l…
I saw Google before the rise, Amazon, Apple, Bitcoin and Tesla. I only acted on Tesla after seeing all the other ones before but didn’t put my conviction into action.
It’s not very hard: you read HN daily/weekly and listen to the trends. Pick one that keep coming and interest you and dig deeper, you are not in a hurry as HN is way early in the cycle, the danger is being too early and giving up before it catch up. (Bitcoin)
Pick one big potential winner, calculate the expected value as good as you can Good/Bad scenario, place your bet, let the time do it’s thing.
An example of a bet I didn’t do: Bitcoin was 1$, I knew that if it worked very well it could go to 1M$. Let say you think that the probability of success is 20%: (1M$/1$)*20% = 200 000 to 1. You then place let say 5k$ on bitcoin and forget about it for 10 years.
At the moment, I don't see a trend that catch my attention beside AI and for the moment I think Tesla will be the winner in that trend.
Look up the book: one up on wall street
Earlier quoted context omitted.
zoe was 210km and very cheap, it's mystery why it didn't took off
The Model S was the first EV that “happened to be” an EV. You didn’t have to compromise on range, power, comfort, or anything else to own it. That’s why it succeeded. It was a great car, and happened to be an EV. Tesla’s chief designer himself: “We are past the idea of an environmentally friendly vehicle needing to look different. People don't want to sacrifice anything, including style, to own an efficient car.”
You definitely had to compromise to own it, on almost everything aspect. Despite everything else, people were buying it because it was electric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is quite unreasonable to expect. The Renault Zoe came out at around the same time as the Model S and had over 150km of reasonable range, at half the price a Model 3 sells at today. It was already competitive.
150km of range is wet shit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on one’s definition of common sense. If 90% of the time one can own a median vehicle wherein they never have to go to the gas station, the vehicle lasts 1,000,000 miles, they aren’t emitting CO2, and gas prices go past five dollars… it might be common sense to use the savings from the situation to rent vehicles to satisfy the other 10% of your needs.
"Common sense" = "I want to be able to get out of town without being stranded on an interstate when evacuating for a hurricane when traffic comes to a standstill and there's no way to recharge." But hey, maybe your idea of common sense is to sit around 16 feet in the air with 120 mph winds blowing against the side of your moving brick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MySpace, BlackBerry come to mind. At least those were new markets. At the end of the day you can't explain love and people love Elon Musk. Guys from all over the world are in a sort weird parasocial relationship with the guy. That never happened with the CEO of MySpace and BlackBerry
I feel like the growth of people that bash him is higher than people that worship him. In any case there is a parasocial component to it indeed.
Worship and bashing/hate are the domain of the crazies/extremists/zealots who are a vocal minority, really a small proportion of the world. Most people thankfully are more balanced and rational in their perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're discounting the very real possibility that Parag is operating as if the deal will not go through, and is making large strategic decisions in anticipation of that being the case. For Parag, I don't see it "burning his reputation" at all, considering either a) he's right and will face the tall task of helming a Twitter that continues to disappoint its investors or b) he's wrong and it won't be his problem when E…
But what's changed? If Parag wanted to go this direction why didn't he do it when he took over as CEO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Twitter won't make enough money to service it's debt This isn't (necessarily) true. While buying Twitter seems like a stupid investment if you want to make money, it's financials[1] very obviously point to streamlining which would make the debt serviceable. In 2021 Twitter spent USD$1.2 billion on "Research and Development". Think about number - when did Twitter actually substantially change the platform? In their…
Twitter has 7500 employees. There have been no major changes in the UI or functionality since its original release over a decade ago. What exactly are those people doing? You could cut 7000 of them and nothing would change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free. I'm not a regular Twitter user but afaik that platform is pretty heavy on politics, more than that, it's pretty heavy when it comes to a certain political spectrum, the other side has been mostly de-platformed by now. I don't consider that as a healthy platform to comment on for the general public (even though, I agree, it might be ok for people who happen to shar…
> I'm not a regular Twitter user followed by > the other side has been mostly de-platformed by now . This is probably my biggest peeve when it comes about discussions on Twitter. The media has made it seem that Twitter just routinely bans conservatives voices for "a difference of opinion" when that is not the case. Twitter's high profile bans are on Wikipedia, and they weren't banned for simply saying "abortion shoul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not a regular Twitter user followed by > the other side has been mostly de-platformed by now . This is probably my biggest peeve when it comes about discussions on Twitter. The media has made it seem that Twitter just routinely bans conservatives voices for "a difference of opinion" when that is not the case. Twitter's high profile bans are on Wikipedia, and they weren't banned for simply saying "abortion shoul…
Banning is one thing, but what about full or actually partial shadow-banning, or deleting selected specific posts which is called moderation, and the overall balance of the biases in the moderation.
Of all the big social networks, Twitter has been the only one to keep the use of chronological feeds. What does "shadow banning" mean when all your tweets are chronological for everyone you follow? Do you actually use Twitter?
>or deleting selected specific posts which is called moderation
Every platform moderates; but now we have moved the goalposts from de-platforming to moderating. Twitter has a few isolated incidents where everyone will beat their chests (namely Hunter Biden and COVID), but those two incidents have failed to signify that Twitter has a systemic issue or bias.
When you actually dive into it; the problem of conservatives being "cancelled" on Twitter comes from the Twitter Mob, aka, other Twitter users. What most of these people want is to post without consequence, "free speech for me but not for thee".