A better idea about what should be done now. Everybody knows that things could be better.

Do you have a better idea, though?

Yes. That’s how the two party system works. Dems are still miles better than Republicans on the issue, and thus don’t need to improve. It sucks, but that’s the hand that’s been dealt I don’t see any better strategy to help the people of Gaza. If you see one, feel free to share.

A big question is, how many sales are actually lost to pirates, or, how many pirates would have bought the game if they couldn’t pirate it. The answer is neither zero, nor all of them, but I don’t know what the actual answer is.

The reason why DMR tends to get cracked is that the concept is inherently flawed. If the entire game runs on your machine, then everything needed to run the game has to be on your machine at some point. DMR is security by obscurity.

Idea: Governments maintain a list of entities that are evading the law like that, and then doesn’t prosecute people who are accused of crimes against such entities. The idea being that if you place yourself outside of the law’s reach, you also place yourself outside of the law’s protection.

Marchetti’s constant People spent on average 1 hour traveling to and from work.

Cars are far louder than most of the things on the list, only gunshots, airplanes and construction can even remotely exceed the level of noise pollution produced by a busy roadway.

OOP has clearly never played “Stellaris”.

A lot of things about foreign policy are based on realpolitik, not ideology. As long as you’re not in power, you can ignore realpolitik, and therefore can promise anything you want. Once in power, things are different.

I figure with Lemmy having much fewer users, there’s less potential for toxic communities to form.

So, in the post you’re replying to, it’s laid out how insurance wouldn’t work, and your reply is “Have you considered insurance?”

Anybody who wants Trump to win. Which likely includes Israel.

Well, given time, prices will move to where the businesses make the most profit. If relationship between price and demand is linear, then an increase in expenses will move the ideal price point by half as much.

Assuming a linear relationship between price and demand, then if you increase the cost of product, the price where the most profit is generated moves by half of this amount.

I suppose that’s true. But it just bothers me when people talk about the market cap like it’s an amount of money that exists somewhere, instead of being an abstract valuation.

Looking at a different example, Ford’s market cap is $42.61e9, and its revenue is $47.81e9, while the profit is $1.83e9, 20 times of which is $36.6e9. If we average both of them we get $42.205e9. So Ford seems to have about the right valuation.

Market Cap of a company is sort of a meaningless number. As in, it’s shares in existence times price per share, which is just another way of saying its the share price. If somebody were to sell $100 Billion worth of Tesla shares, the market price would plummet and he’d not get the $100 Billion the shares were originally worth.

Of course, a rule of thumb is that a company is worth 20 times it’s annual profit, or its revenue. So, by that valuation, Tesla is worth 28 Billion dollars, or 25.5 Billion dollars if we go by revenue. (I’m surprised that both approaches lead to results so close to each other) Compare with a market cap of 682,47 billion, we can see that Tesla is ridiculously overvalued. So, I guess you should go and buy puts on Tesla. Or sell your shares if you have any.

How so? Can you list some examples of upvoted things that are wildly wrong?

Current neural networks do really fancy statistics. To make the model better, you need to make the statistics more precise. Leading to marginal improvements of accuracy requiring exponentially growing marginal amounts of training data. This leads to exponentially decaying marginal utility coupled with exponentially growing marginal expense. Which quickly becomes unsustainable. Edit: On the plus side, this likely means you won’t have to give up much utility when the market adjusts.