boh

36 ms·

511.
by boh 6y ago
Aren't we lucky the industry "solved" the problem of consumer ownership rights by removing them completely. I'm glad "developers" (i.e. large corporate entities that are mostly profiting from these sales) are
512.
Online algorithms should face regulatory scrutiny, says UK watchdog(ft.com)
1 points by boh 6y ago|0 comments
513.
Businesses Aim to Pull Greenhouse Gases from the Air. It’s a Gamble(nytimes.com)
9 points by boh 6y ago|5 comments
514.
People eat at least 50k plastic particles a year, study finds(theguardian.com)
4 points by boh 6y ago|2 comments
515.
by boh 6y ago
These "delusional" assessments are based on the analysis of financial firms. They make a more convincing argument than "things are good because technology". The financials are pretty clear. The public markets are less ef
516.
by boh 6y ago
Shareholders can't liquidate a company.
517.
by boh 6y ago
Oil prices are likely to decrease in the next 30 years (this according to the oil industry's own estimates). The capital requirements for fracking are unlikely to change much (since this isn't software). Pushing water through hard
518.
by boh 6y ago
These aren't bold claims, it's literally how stocks work. The belief of shareholders actually owning the company was just a side-effect of the marketing for shareholder primacy ideology. Even recent finance/management textboo
519.
by boh 6y ago
This trend is likely to diminish in the future. Fracking was never profitable and was completely reliant on capital inflows that were drying up even before COVID. Since COVID the industry is essentially collapsing.
520.
Boeing says its composites R&D center will be turned to other purposes(geekwire.com)
11 points by boh 6y ago|0 comments
521.
Capitol breach inflames Democrats’ ire at Silicon Valley(politico.com)
1 points by boh 6y ago|0 comments
522.
by boh 6y ago
I don't see section 230 lasting much longer
523.
by boh 6y ago
The money doesn't actually belong to the shareholders, since a shareholder only owns the company stock not the company (stocks typically do not grant any ownership rights of any kind besides votes on management/corporate actions--
524.
SPACs: Be Careful(morningstar.com)
1 points by boh 6y ago|0 comments
525.
by boh 6y ago
I think being wealthy is the most effective parenting style to create leaders (in the US anyway).
526.
by boh 6y ago
ARK funds actually have a pretty high turn-over rate.
527.
by boh 6y ago
More often than you think. Entire funds go in and out of existence constantly.
528.
by boh 6y ago
Often when you see a ballooning of asset values--regardless if it's securities, real estate etc.--what it really winds up being is a ballooning of debt. Allowing retail investors to trade on margin is just asking for trouble. When you
529.
by boh 6y ago
That's a little nitpick-y. Institutional investors, that make up the bulk of the market, allocate their investments based on a chosen strategy. So even index funds jump "in and out" of markets to balance their portfolios. Sto
530.
by boh 6y ago
It is useful. Just not in the context suggested by this article. Highly broad "what if" studies like this are shallow but offer suggestive assumptions that aren't particularly helpful to understand aspects of the economy like
531.
by boh 6y ago
Honestly it's not too bad. I've pretty much tried every platform, including the ones no longer with us (RIP Rdio) and no Spotify isn't perfect, but it's pretty good in relative terms. Every platform, after some time, get
532.
by boh 6y ago
Agreed, that's the point. How do you think the doctors and lawyers feel (or to be more specific to HN--the people doing well in the tech sector)? Having a finger pointed at you for living your life without "doing something" w
533.
by boh 6y ago
Hate to burst your bubble but if you're one of the 25% of Americans who has an undergraduate degree or above you're likely part of that barely-rich who are part of "the problem" (from a global perspective making over $50
534.
by boh 6y ago
It's not hypothetical because it happens. Stocks don't operate in low-entropy hypothetical planes of existence, they trade on markets. If your ask has no bids you lower your ask. Sellers will keep lowering it and if there's n
535.
by boh 6y ago
Not exactly: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/25/were-doi... And as far as Microsoft: software was only added after 1999 and its relevance is only measured in sales not actual produc
536.
by boh 6y ago
Digital services have always been either improperly factored or not factored at all. Software was only included after 1999, tech growth from Google and Facebook are still not included since they offer "free" services.
537.
by boh 6y ago
Highly unlikely. Productivity growth engendered higher incomes, not the other way around. The 70's is when that growth came to an end.
538.
by boh 6y ago
Macro-analyses like this aren't particularly representative of any relevant point. For one thing GDP is a poor measure of the general increases of wealth. The US's pivot to services isn't represented in GDP since it only accu
539.
by boh 6y ago
The ultra rich don't pay the current tax rate, why would raising a tax they don't pay have any effect? Until there's an aggressive international agreement on closing tax loopholes, raising the taxes only impacts the barely-ri
540.
by boh 6y ago
It's never a good decision for Apple to buy Tesla, even in hindsight. Buying a capital intensive company within a heavily regulated industry is not the same as buying a social media company or a messaging app. An increase in the stock

More ›