Where are the young companies trying to replace them? There are all the AI companies, but Google and Meta both have competitive chatbots, and OpenAI is signing weird deals that don't make it look like a long-term player.
They all get bought out by Amazon, Google, Meta et al. The cash just tastes too good when stacked up against the prospect of grinding for 15 years and probably nothing coming of it.
I'm not pulling out a weapon unless it is the very last option, but I did not enjoy the prospect of having to mull that decision. In the end I just never shopped at that Walmart again.
I understand how the US and EU have different electrical outlets, voltages and frequencies. The systems developed independently, standardized on compatible versions locally, and standardizing globally would be very expensive and almost impossible to do safely.
I don't understand how North America and Europe settled on different EV charging plugs.
Three-phase power is ubiquitous in Europe, my oven and stove are connected to it yet this is a small apartment. The slightly larger plug (to fit the extra pins) and extra cables are worthwhile for the higher power and balanced consumption.
CCS1/2 (DC Fast charging) and J1772 (AC "Slow" charging) share a port on most cars. That is, the CCS plug uses the entire plug and the J1772 part uses just the upper portion of the plug.
The AC "slow" charging in the US only needs to support two-phase power (residential power is two phase) and the EU (and others?) generally need to support three-phase power.
NACS is just better in North America (versus CCS1) because it's smaller and much easier to physically handle, but the AC "slow" charging pinning only supports two phase power.
I don't drive a RV, I just charge my campers batteries sometimes. I have 3 different connector cables from the common connectors I found in Switzerland, France and Italy only.
In my area according to Google maps I see J1772, CCS1, CCS2, Typ 2, CHAdeMO, NACS next to schuko (landline) (in Austria right now).
As said not all stations provide all the standards, not every station has CCS2, hence why I carry multiple cable adapters. That's all I know really. As said I don't drive an electric car.
People like to say "big tech sells their data." This is actually rare. Almost every other company you deal with willing gives it to big tech, and they just hoard it and run ads with it.
> ...I left behind everything and everyone i know and love on the west coast to come to New York specifically for this opportunity of helping care for my family and growing long term equity with real estate
> With my full time engineering job bringing in around $150k, a salary that I clawed my way slowly and steadily for 20 years, I could just about manage covering all the expenses, maintenance, and planned improvements for the long-term vision of the properties, maintain my 16-year-old daily driver car, and maybe even have four or five thousand dollars left over each year to take one little camping trip and make a couple stock and crypto investments.
Rather than building a career as a software engineer, he spent most of his time as a small-time real estate and crypto(!) investor subsidized by his software engineering side hustle.
lumping in a camping trip with investments is odd. A camping trip might cost very nearly zero dollars, depending on distance and what I have available. We'll be generous here and assume $100 was spent for some reason. That $100 is expended, you don't get it back.
A stock investment might "cost" $4000, but I would hope to have nearly $4000 in some asset. My absolute worst investments, I typically still exited them with 40% of my initial capital.
i was just describing the all around comfort level of my lifestyle. if you drive a couple states away for a camping trip for a week, get a couple motels maybe, eat out, etc, it can be 2k$ pretty easily
I think it's clear he considers the real estate to be actual investments, but the camping trips and crypto/stock to be "play money". Perhaps not a bad strategy.
As much as I have sympathy for dealing with an aging family and being a caretaker, it's these three quotes that essentially threw me away. I'm in a similar position and will never be able to afford property or a home, let alone three houses and the ability to throw a bunch of money at crypto despite having a salary at a similar level.
It sounds like there were poor investments made in owning a bunch of property and now that issue is coming to roost.
I was just trying to become a homeowner. my first house in new york was about 1/4th to 1/5th the cost of a "starter home" anywhere in california. I was never going to be able to afford that
I don't want to sound like I'm victim-blaming here, but the reality is there's no free lunch. Investments are not risk-free, and, as you've discovered, there's a reason you got these properties at such a low cost. It seems like your real estate situation can't go on like this forever, right?
> selling my properties would be a ruinous move letting go of my most valuable assets that are the only toe hold I have in this economy, and may threaten my ability to become a homeowner potentially ever again, depending on how this economic future plays out.
Despite these negatives, it's possible that selling is the financially-smart thing to do. Keeping your properties may also be a ruinous move that could cost your ability to become a homeowner ever again. It's unfortunate, but it sounds like you need to choose whichever is the lesser of two evils and stick with it.
> If i was bestowed some gift of capital, I could complete the renovations and make the house income-producing.
As an alternative, if this is actually true, then you'd be the perfect candidate for a loan against your house. People commonly get emotional around housing and debt, but there's no room for that when you're struggling to survive.
Yeah, I think so, though my recollection is that a baked potato's glycemic index is kinda high. For more authoritative list of details, you could listen to the following podcast with Inchauspé: https://overcast.fm/+AA4G32XuwoA
I know Jane Street love OCaml, but you have to wonder how much it's cost them in velocity and maintenance. This is a quant firm blogging about a programming language they're the most famous user of.
I agree with your point about reasoning when employing Functional Programming (FP).
However, I very much disagree with Graham's 2004 assertion[0]:
It's a lot of work to learn a new programming language. And
people don't learn Python because it will get them a job;
they learn it because they genuinely like to program and
aren't satisfied with the languages they already know.
It does not require "a lot of work to learn a new programming language" once a person has fluency with at least one. Actually, the difficulty of learning a new programming language is inversely proportional to how many programming languages the person has already learned. Especially if a new programming language is in the same paradigm category as those already known (Procedural, OOP, FP, etc.).
I was a professional software engineer in 2004, when the Graham post was written. To say, "people don't learn Python because it will get them a job ..." was bullshit then just as it is now. The remainder of the quoted sentence is unfounded extrapolation and has the value of same.
There are many things to say about this, but one of those things is that I think you are making the assumption that an (e.g.) C programmer who does not want (or even cannot) get into OCaml would somehow be better for this highly specialized, high-performance, and high-correctness-affine use case, than someone who does. And I'd question that assumption.
Jane Street has been one of the most successful financial firms of the last 10 years or so, going from a niche hedge fund to a big player. Sounds like OCaml has been working out for them. Certainly I know it's helped them hire a lot of excellent programmers.
Why do you assume it's a drag for them and not a competitive advantage? I don't know if it's such a terrible thing to use a slightly out of mainstream language, when the standard in the business is to accumulate tens of millions of lines of C++.
Agreed, indeed I believe they have mentioned that OCaml gets them to ship quicker because they are more confident with the correctness of changes.
But being outside of the mainstream may mean you need to occasionally debug more esoteric stuff: https://gallium.inria.fr/blog/intel-skylake-bug/ I'm sure Jane Street can afford doing that, but I'm not so sure if a small team can.
That was an interesting read, thanks.
However I fail to see how it's an issue specific to ocaml. It was a bug in the Skylake processor triggered by a special pattern of instructions produced by gcc. Ocaml built with clang was ok because it doesn't used the same pattern.
Did I miss something?
> Why do you assume it's a drag for them and not a competitive advantage?
Because despite them being very open about it, no one else does it, and every distinguished engineer who pushes a weird tech choice will justify and defend it.
People that haven’t used ocaml think it’s weird. I picked it up casually in 2020. It might not be popular, but it’s certainly not weird. It’s actually quite fantastic. These days I rarely ever use it, but I wish I did!
Whether or not it's efficient isn't as much of a concern as if it's being gamed. Reports of growing university administrations, increase in the cost of an education, and biases in the publish-or-perish model show the old model is no longer effective.
Between his fashion accessories and Joe Rogan appearance, I'm convinced he hasn't. Five years ago, Cheryl Sandberg would call him on it. Today, he's surrounded by yes men.
