Starling is 10k satellites shared across the entire planet.
A satellite will serve thousands of customers, whereas a fixed line only serves one. I think 10k is also severely understating the cost per customer. There's like hundreds of metres between these houses at a minimum, and in some areas possibly Kilometers from house to house.
Paying for T2 means the whole team gets faster T2s. Giving them resources lets them build them faster because their own resource generation is less than that of the team.
T2s are so good this is an objectively good tradeoff. It's not about compensating the eco player (though that does happen by extension) its about getting your whole team faster T2 mexes.
This very much depends on the lobby. I don't think this is unique to BAR either - it's just that 8v8 is the most popular mode.
Lots of players mean more chances to get a toxic guy who doesn't recognise their own faults and blames others.
I actually just don't really agree about the assertion on player slots. If anything, the better players get the more likely they are to play a front slot, because they have an outside influence on the chances of their team winning.
Isn't this what all of the big companies that spend a lot on R&D and engineers promise?
And then the reality turns out not to be the case - you have to continuously spend on R&D to avoid getting your lunch eaten by someone else.
This isn't a social media network with lockin either. People can and will just switch to whatever whenever they feel like it. Maybe it becomes a defacto standard like google but if someone is much better than you, well...
I think the more salient points for the paywalls is people want pay once access everything, instead of piecemeal. I would certainly be happy to subscribe to "news" in general, but not a dozen different providers for one article apiece.
As in, current indexes perform that much worse. Frontrunners around index rebalancing etc. SpaceX is the same idea, just way more obvious. People knows what the index funds are going to do, and so they exploit that.
The alternative funds are a little pricier, but not so much so as to negate the inherent performance advantage. Typical cost ratio is 0.1-0.5% depending on the niche (wide indexes are cheaper, more niche things like small cap value cost more)
Starling is an entirely different beast. However, it's addressable market is not unlimited. More people live in urban and suburban areas with fixed line internet than ever - the only real customer base is rural, and it still needs to compete with conventional mobile internet.
Starling is indeed very good, but it alone doesn't get spacex to 1.75T
Because the rules are clearly going to result in lots of buying pressure from passive indexes on a large stock with little time for price discovery.
Come on, let's be adults here. Is there a prior example of this on a comparable scale?
It's already well known that passive indexes bleed ~0.5% performance solely to front running and exploitation from the market. This is that writ large.
The real issue is that existing shareholders will all be eyeing each other wanting to exit at the highest price it'll ever be. That's a lot of selling pressure.
I can't imagine many people seriously believe SpaceX is a business worth 1.75T.
0.8% of drag is a lot when you can do basically the same thing by not strictly following the index.
There are funds from Dimensional and Avantis that are basically just index funds but with a bit more leeway to avoid these obvious pitfalls, and from what I saw they do perform approximately 0.5% better per year.
A unit (multi-dwelling property, not necessarily an apartment) might cost 650k here, but only rent for 500$/w. 25kpa is a 4% return on that principle, before expenses (property management, maintenance, rates/taxes etc).
The only context in which it makes sense is if capital gains/land value goes up, which it has historically but that's no guarantee.
Houses make all these numbers even worse - higher upfront expense (land value) and lower rental yield (they rent for more, but tenants prefer a better house/dwelling more than they care about a back yard, so cost goes up more than rent does)