If you told McDonald's to double their number of McRibs produced next year that would be an incredible challenge to meet. They already sell enough that it affects the global pork market, it'd be insane for them to double their demand for pork. What about other supplies, would this result in a reduced burger demand? How can they ensure they can respond appropriately either way? They probably run near fridge/storage capacity, does increasing this mean they need to also increase storage at restaurants?
That's a 2X increase. Now do it again and a half for a 5x. Crazy to say there's a "scaling wall" that once you "pierce" it's easy to scale up. It's the opposite, McDonald's already knows how to supply and sell X McRibs a year, there's no company that's ever sold 5X those McRibs so they have to figure it out themselves.
Historically, and happy to be proven wrong here, we've never seen a lab-leak of a novel virus cause a widespread outbreak. We have seen zoonotic transmission cause an epidemic/pandemic. So at least for me, I was working off of, "Is it likely that we're seeing something for the first time? Or is it likely this happened the way it's happened before?"
1. There's a giant difference between 80% and 30%.
2. That's not reflective of the rental market in Houston (I'm from there and going back for a graduation tomorrow), that's reflective of your landlord charging you for the convenience of not moving.
There's no details about this, however I believe it wasn't a "buyout incentive" it was a "don't talk shit about us" payment given that all the ex employees have only said things like: "After X years I've decided to leave basecamp."
In which case, not sure not offering the package would have gone well.
You remind me of the database guy who, when I told him we'd lost a replica in prod and asked when it would be back online, said, "It's not a high priority for us, there's still another replica."
A lot of the original libertarians were...socialists. The term today has been rebranded to mean strictly anarcho-capitalists but it originally included anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists.
>I think it also means I’m less likely to get hit on, which is a horrible thing that has happened to a lot of young women in fields where there aren’t enough women
Do you think my framing is inaccurate given what she said? How would you describe the negative association with being hit on in the quote above?
>Translating "hit on" as "prey on" might be a sign that you have an unhealthy view of human relationships.
Seeing someone cute at a wedding and making a pass is a far cry from what's been happening in academia for decades where power dynamics are often obvious. There's a reason why very few people would have a problem being (tastefully) hit on in a social situation and why people complain about it happening in a professional situation.
I'm not sure of your point. You're scared of being seen as a predator while women are scared of being preyed upon? So wouldn't you want to try and make spaces as safe as possible so that women wouldn't have to be afraid?
People can obviously do whatever they want as long as they're aware past performance...blah...blah...don't invest more than you can lose...blah.
I've pulled out from everything with a rich P/E ratio and am only keeping money in companies that I feel are a) stable and b) have a reasonable-to-low P/E ratio.
My thought is that new investors tend to go for well-known companies or meme stocks, but either way driving up the P/E ratio. I don't want to be caught in the downswing when these investors leave.