There are diminishing returns to more engineers. Also hiring more is like investing with leverage. You might increase EV but also increase the chance of going bust if things go poorly.
So Trevor fabricated evidence to fool the police? That's a far more serious offense than the sexual misconduct, and frankly it's hard to believe he could pull that off, unless he managed to bribe the police. Johnny's probably not completely innocent - they can both be scumbags.
If you look at it in terms of risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio), a fixed transaction fee costs more Sharpe on a low-variance bet than it does on a high-variance bet. The variance of balanced contracts is higher than the variance of unbalanced ones (p(1-p) is concave with maximum at p=0.5), so after adjusting for risk the transaction fee is more significant for the unbalanced contract.
A large proportion, if not the majority of my doordash orders include some sort of promotion. They're everywhere and at this point I almost have an expectation that doordash will always have a promotion that lets me order at a discount.
I think that these effective consumer subsidies are included in their "sales and marketing" budget.
I don't get it. If the landlord wants the filming to happen so badly, why doesn't he kick in a few grand to compensate his tenant... That's a lot easier than kicking and screaming all night.
That's the fundamental problem of hiring: you have to make educated guesses about who is going to make a better employee. And you should be willing to pay more to hire someone who you believe is better. For some companies, salaries are such a small part of their revenue that it makes sense to offer some candidates a lot more... and if your first choice happens to accept a lower salary, it doesn't really matter - you've saved a drop in the bucket.
Have you talked to the person who made the not? They might not realize how distracting it is. Maybe they'll move it to another channel as a compromise.
It's about supply and demand. If he really is the best person for the job, then there's nothing to be gained from paying him a higher fixed salary. But if there's someone else who's even marginally better that you can get for $10M, it's probably easily worth it - for the size of the fund, one person's pay is a negligible amount.
My impression is that Uber fulfills a niche for drivers who want a certain tradeoff between flexibility and job security. There are people who fit into that niche and people who don't, but forcing the company to change its value proposition is going to make some people start or stop driving for Uber depending on how well the new contract suits them. This could be a net economic win or loss, but we don't know the numbers.
In the long run, if there are enough drivers who value the flexible arrangement that Uber provides, then either another company will fill that niche or these people will find similar work elsewhere.
I share a monitor and peripherals for both personal and work stuff, and find that an effective way to "turn off work mode" is to simply switch the hub from my work laptop to my personal computer so I'm not as tempted to go back to work.
This is part of a super generic tradeoff between liberty and public good that differs from case to case depending on your culture and values. For example, should we ban smoking? What about meth? And so on.