Why would it matter? OP is experiencing an undesirable outcome, and assigning blame for the problem seems besides the point when the main goal is to change the outcome.
you can, only if you have the critical amount of self confidence, appetite for conflict, lack the fear of losing them, and/or have another group of people who you can substitute after their loss. Thats a big ask for all but the most socially endowed of us.
There seems to already be significant competition in the low cost ETF space. For example, Schwab’s broad based s&p ETF (SCHB) has $34b AUM.
The fact that there exists a competitive market suggests that there’s a good reason expense ratios can’t drop much further than .03%. Presumably, once you reach a certain size, there are costs associated with managing a low cost etf strategy that the end investor actually wants to pay for.
What makes you think you can beat these market rates in a way that is truly accretive to investors? Put another way, what is Schwab wasting money on that you won’t?
I doubt Schwab is just being greedy with their .03% fee. It’s necessary to cover their costs.
> How do you prevent kids using social media without 100% surveillance or not allowing internet access at all?
Do the parental controls on mobile phones not work? I'm not a parent, so I don't know, but it seem unbelievable to me that there isn't an effective way to grant internet access to kids without social media.
"BYD received a total of 37.1 billion yuan in tax rebates over the five-year period, nearly four times the 9.3 billion yuan it received in subsidies. Additionally, BYD has secured long-term bank loans at interest rates between 2.05% and 2.98%, lower than the one-year prime lending rate of 3.35%, according to the company filings.
"
The overt subsidies mostly existed in the early part of the development process. It's a playbook that's quite commonly used in East Asian economies. Basically it goes like this:
1. Erected barriers to foreign competition and hand out subsidies to simulate local competition
2. Withdraw subsidies to push industries towards mergers and leave only a few big companies in the industry
3. Remove barriers to foreign competitions (i.e. invite Tesla) to foster innovations
4. Export
This makes it devilishly hard to quantify the amount of subsidies received and it's intentional.
China isn't the first to do this but rather borrowed the playbook from Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, who borrowed it from Germany, who, ironically, was inspired by the idea of industrial policy from Alexander Hamilton (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-03-14/odd-lots-ind...)
Thanks for the information! So, if the subsidies are in the form of tax rebates and subsidized loans, is it safe to say, the full economic benefit of these subsidies as a percentage of vehicle sales revenue is single digits? If so, it seems like there's little reason to doubt that BYD would be immensely successful in the US without tarrifs.
TLDR about $2000 per vehicle in 2024, trending to $0 per vehicle in next 5 years. Meanwhile PRC selling cars abroad for 2x+ domestic (i.e. 10-20k over), aka manifestly not dumping prices. BYD (and a few other PRC NEV makers) are successful because they used subsidies the way it should be used - to commoditize manufacturing to ModelT levels (500usd per unit vs when competition was 2000usd).
> It's a very relevant fact that Greg Brockman recently left on his own volition.
Except that isn’t true. He has not resigned from OpenAI. He’s on extended leave until the end of the year.
That could become an official resignation later, and I agree that that seems more likely than not. But stating that he’s left for good as of right now is misleading.
You’re already getting a lot of solid advice so I’ll keep mine short.
Video games are not inherently bad. They become a problem only when they’re getting in the way of your other life goals.
So, the best place to start is by asking your son: what do you want to achieve over the next 3-4 years?
Then, try to help him figure out the best way to spend his time to achieve those goals.
I feel strongly that the starting point of the conversation should be alignment around the fact that there isn’t anything inherently wrong with video games. Not only is this the truth, it also establishes that you aren’t judging him.
Most of the conversation in this thread consists of people talking past each other bc they aren't aligned on the definition of the word: fired.
Yes, there's a way to define the word "fired" such that PG did fire Sam.
But, that definition is not the colloquial definition of the word "fired".
Just go outside on the street, and ask someone: "My boss just told me that I need to stop working on my side project to keep working at his company. Would you say I just got fired?"
The answer 95%+ of the time will be no.
So, while I can understand why you might argue that PG fired Sam, if you can't understand why PG claims that he did not fire Sam, you simply have your head buried in the sand.
This is where I think everyone will disagree with you. I don't know anyone who would agree with your statement. Most people I know would agree that you're being fired when your terms of continued employment change drastically in such an unfavorable way. If my boss told me, "Hey, you can keep working here as long as you work for free" then that's being fired but by your definition - it's not.
> "Got fired" may be a tad ambiguous, but being told "stop working on that other thing or leave" is not too far off.
It's very different.
When employees begin working at my company, they're told a list of things they're not allowed to do. And, they're told if they do these things, they will be shown the door.
By your definition of "not too far off", we're basically firing people on day one. Absurd.
This may sound positively retro and cold-warish, but IMO we've had way too many close calls in the 80 years nuclear weapons existed, and the quality of governance worldwide only seems to decline.
Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union treated each other with the vitriol that Russia and the US do today. Do you believe Putin and Trump are half the gentlemen Kennedy and Khrushchev were? I seriously believe we are closer now to nuclear deployment than at any time after 1945. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev was dreadfully worried about nuclear war and wrote many cables to Kennedy sorrowfully bemoaning the thought. While today, Putin airs propaganda to an increasingly uneducated audience treating a theoretical first nuclear use as unremarkable, and his ministers seem more concerned with the idea of whether or not they can ever beat MAD.[1] Trump liked to brag about the size of his "button" to Kim Jong Un like it was a WWE script. There's little hope I have that the world will escape, even a limited tactical deployment in the coming two decades, playing fiery chicken with the future of humanity.
Nuclear war is not an extinction event, though. Most people would survive, and while they would face hardships, the "radioactive wasteland" thing is a fairly sloppy sci-fi trope.
That aside, if all nukes were launched, it's not about the directly irradiated areas. Imagine how much fallout will be launched into the upper atmosphere when 10,000+ nukes hit, with many in the multi-megaton range.
The sheer amount of material thrown into the air could virtually blot out the sun for potentially years. Given that a large portion will be radioactive, it could be raining death for years too.
Ehh the dust will fall out of the atmosphere within a few months. Large population centers will be craters proba ly. The 4 year nuclear winter will cause starvation and eating the "long pork" such that up to 90% of the population globally will die.
