I get where you're coming from - this response seemed overly harsh. But I do think there's an important difference - this petition is anonymous and criticizes three people by name. Armstrong's response criticizes nobody by name (he couldn't!)
Really frustrating that three consecutive comments just claim "not as good, "same", "not as good". Would it be so hard to name a particular feature that matters to you when saying Signal is lacking? Otherwise what's the point of your comment?
Grubbhub, Seamless, Eat24, Foodler, DiningIn. They were all around and fairly large by then. But they didn't go big on spending VC money, so over time DoorDash wins. Pretty interesting, however it turns out.
I appreciate your measured response. I certainly had not dug deep into these daily 3X funds, as the daily/drag aspect seemed (seems?) clearly a problem. But, I can't just pretend the 10yr history of UPRO doesn't exist. I'll have to think more about this.
If it were possible (I recognize it isn't, due to margin limits), would it not be better to be 3x leveraged in your margin account, and simply buy the basic S&P and bond products? Wouldn't that avoid the "drag", and you'd end up better off?
Edit: For more clarity - risk parity can make sense, but I don't think you ever need to use leverage on your equities to get risk parity. The fundamental insight of risk parity investing is that at commonly recommended ratios (50/50, 60/40) the risk (variance) from equities totally dominates the risk from bonds. So the risk parity advice is usually something with a much higher bond mix, but the entire portfolio is leveraged. But DO NOT use levered ETFs that recognize, say, 3x the DAILY movement of the S&P to do this. They don't do what you think. Read that link, or compute the following two scenarios:
1) Market goes up 1.1% on odd days, down 1% on even days. That yields about 9% (200 trading days). But a 3x daily etf product would only get you about 22%, not 27%.
2) Market foes up 1% on odd days, down 1.1% on even. That, sadly, means you lose about 11% on the year. If you use a 3x DAILY etf product, you lose around 75%.
If food delivery and ride hailing continue to experience inverse demand relationships, there's a pretty big synergy here in being able to keep your drivers (oops, I mean the independent business owners you've contracted with) busy.
I get the feeling, but I rarely think "I'm completely done now, time to comment!" Better to admit that and document a bit earlier than when it's "finished".
"Banning a book" colloquially means that nobody is allowed to read that book, it conjures images of book burnings and the gestapo searching your house for contraband. "Banning" a repo here means, "Github is not offering you free resources to develop your code. Fortunately, you're using a distributed source control management scheme so everyone has a backup. Please take it elsewhere."
Sharepoint has an uncertain future? I had never heard of it a year ago, but as I got to know the "enterprise" space, it seems every large company is heavily invested in it. What might replace the need to share documents across a company in the MS world?
I think this does a good job of presenting the financial issues properly without too much rhetoric. The most important point was that if these corporations need a bailout to survive, then the stockholders have already lost their money. The bailout preserves the corporation, for the good of the country and/or workers, not to prevent stock holders from seeing losses.
One place where I am in less agreement is when the authors says that the government should be paid back and retain its share of ownership (I think that's what the article implied). The author wants this to be an equity investment. Those are not paid back. Any dividend would be shared in proportion to ownership (previous stockholders may have been quite diluted, of course).
And then my final question is, should the government retain equity indefinitely? Might we imagine paying out shares to citizens?
Viaweb was founded in 1995 and sold in 1998. It WAS part of the first bubble. And no, people were not routinely writing web server based "applications" in 1995. They were, at best, making some early websites. Also nobody was thinking of pages as screens in an app powered by server based software. OpenMarket, I suppose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Market
That's true, though I often forget it. But surely those cracker-jack security expert HTML writers don't forget! Or use such privacy insensitive tools as the ones you've mentioned.
It's another function though, surely harder to reach for than the normal search. What's the value in bifurcating your searching process? What do you gain?
I mean, he had to learn to read too. If not for that, he'd never have founded viaweb!
True, but not very interesting.
I happen to think both were fairly innovative. Both viaweb and YC were at the forefront of a newish idea that seems pretty obvious in retrospect: Server based applications, and startup incubators. Both existed before to some extent, but pg recognized their value pretty quickly, and did them both well enough to make an impact. (I'd learn toward more credit incubators and less for server-based apps, but whatever.)