I think I've observed enough of this sentiment over the years, from some very smart and successful people, to come to the conclusion that, if it is nonsense, it is non-obvious.
> I never diminish anyone
Perhaps you never _intend_ to diminish anyone, but to some, your statements may reasonably appear to be diminishing some cohort.
Well, it seems ridiculous to say that, because there have been 3g microcells (openbsc, for example) forever. It seems bizarre that we couldn't have a switch in every truck that turns it into a mobile microcell for <$100. The backhaul is the problem, because normal microcells are connected to the internet via hardline IP communication . . . . which could be done with modern satellite. The problem is that if you are selling anything to any kind of government agency, you absolutely want them _not_ to be able to use any commodity component like a "cell phone"
It seems that perhaps you have some idea of what these perverse outcomes look like.
D) seems to be "a company reinvests in its employees (training, etc)
and
E) is someethign like "a Company rewards employees and stakeholders for long-term company success."
What does the perverse scenario look like for you?
Here is an interesting and recent article which captures some of that motive: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/18/coca-cola-recycling-plas.... The truth is, that these businesses which externalize the costs are also huge interests in the areas where they are prevalent. Coke is synonymous with Georgia, so it is unlikely they will ever have a bottle deposit there. So is Waste Management (NYSE:WM) . Regarding externalities, many people believe that generating disposable things as a practice is fundamentally externalizing costs.
> the lenders will only lend up to 80% of the value of the house (an ordinary bank loan must be used for the remaining fraction)
From olau's explanation, it seems that there is enough money flowing, that more than 80% can be financed (in some way) even if it is not in a single or collateral-backed loan.
In my limited experience, stock options have significant differences from other typical investments in the following ways:
1) You can be prevented from effectively selling stock options prior to a liquidity event
2) Partly due to 1) , stock options are much harder to price than other investments that _could_ be bought and sold freely.
3) Due to the additional requirements as a byproduct of vesting, it is often impossible to pursue options at multiple similar organizations simultaneously.
4) Due to the caveats of even being a shareholder in a company, sometimes there are complications and risks. This is why there is a significant multi-page document to sign when exercising options typically.
We actually had Marat come to the Go meetup in Atlanta when he was finishing up his PHD at GT. He had done some preliminary work on SIMD. It was a small meetup ( I think only ~6-7 in attendance) and went over many folks heads, since a lot of people were focused on breaking up Ruby monoliths into Go. SIMD would have been nice, but really we were still reveling in the benefits of getting the hell out of ruby for high-throughput networked services. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MYg8PyhEf0oIvZ9YU2pa...