>I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that?
Fail early. You can achieve cohesion by letting go of everybody who cannot discuss politics in a civilized manner. Then you can be sure that the remaining team can discuss anything without any problems.
On the other hand, is it cohesion when the team is held together by outer influences?
This assumes that parents know what's best for their children. Is it just to the children that parents can spend a fortune on miseducating their children? (The Dutch family wasn't rich, but there can be seen that parents can totally go astray. [1])
Being a rich son (70% work for their father according to a linked study in the article) is essentially like being Tim Cook. It's a nice job that pays handsomely but who has the character to walk away and do what they really want to do? This links back to the beginning of my comment: do rich parents prepare their children for that move or do they try everything to lock their children into their heritage?
This is not an argument for standardized schooling. I am just wondering if being a rich kid actually comes with a huge price.
Hasn't Maxwell not mentioned Maxwell's equations when giving a speech about the state of the art of science? If a great scientist can be unsure about a theory, it's not surprising that an average reviewer can be, too.
From Hilbert's perspective, he did a lot of work that he cared about, but one random thing got his name on it out of proportion to his own sense of what his important about himself. That's disorienting.
Gauss avoided this problem by getting everything named after him.
you can think of every journal having some set 'perceived value' and 'safety' parameters (e.g some journals will tune down safety to allow flashier papers to enter while others will tune up safety at the expense of flashiness). there is basically a push and pull between value and safety.
How else can facebook prevent people from moving on to wechat with its internal payment system? Why should people stick to facebook if wechat can offer a whole bunch of services that need (micro) transactions?
Facebook can have an internal payment system that uses local currencies. There is no reason it needs to create its own currency, except as a power grab. Building out a Paypal clone is fine enough.
How can it be a power grab, Libra was going to be at least an open system with it's own wallet protocols and market for implementations. A WeChat style system would be totally closed from the ground up.
No, it was going to be open to partners that Facebook picks and chooses. It was very specifically not to be a fully decentralised blockchain, which essentially means it's actually a big permissioned database, which the database owners get to control.
That's the opposite. The soldiers make it work for the general whereas the German word would be used if it works 'in general' but doesn't when it's demonstrated to the general during an inspection.
A few years ago, I found a promotional offer on lowendbox.com for chicagovps.net, but currently there are none that cheap.
However, keep in mind that low price often comes at a cost. For example, cloudatcost had a cheap VPS with a onetime payment for life (yeah, I know, too good to be true), but then retroactively invented a maintenance fee. Also several days of downtime were not uncommon.
A good diesel generator should have the peak efficiency of a diesel engine of about 40%. A diesel car can hit the same peak, but only at a certain speed/power output. So the average efficiency is about 20%. So there is a quite a marging for charging losses.
The weight of an electric car usually is a minor component in the consumption, most is the aerodynamic drag. On top of that, electric cars can get about 60% of their kinetic energy back by using their motor as a generator.
I would assume that there will be a neighbor who offers a money service to the village. He will have a Libra account. No need to drive to the next big city. Your family can go to that person who they trust and he will hand out the money.
And if it is not Facebook, it will be WeChat. Then you first have to send your Libra coins to a suitable exchange that will wire it to that neighbor.
Actually, many African countries have mobile money, so you won't wire it to a WeChat exchange but to a mobile money exchange [1].
Does this mean that using those brokers means that I 'nakedly' own those shares? I.e. if I actually pick a successful share and the price explodes, the shorter or the broker cannot buy it back and I end up owning nothing?
With all the people shorting Tesla, who will own Tesla if Tesla succeeds and the price explodes?
No, if you short shares and the price rises too much, your account will go into a margin call and your broker will liquidate all of your positions. All brokers have complex risk management to protect their interests.
In the extremely rare case that you end up with a negative balance, the broker will cover the shares and collect the money from you like any other debt.
But the broker doesn't necessarily lend out the shares to his own clients. And even if he does, how does he get back the shares from the person who went long? The broker will have to buy other shares. But if the price of those shares is exploding, who is willing to sell them?
I'm not sure what you're asking. You only borrow shares if you're shorting. You just buy them if you want to go long.
The broker will handle finding shares to lend to you if you want to short. Liquidity is a separate problem, which is why you might have low spreads or not even be able to find shares to short in the first place. Your ability to short a stock is not guaranteed and up to the market conditions and broker risk. And like I described, if you borrow shares to short and the prices increases greatly, then the broker will margin call your account to buy them back forcefully.
I am not asking what happens if I short shares but if I lend to others my shares. If the broker cannot buy those shares back, I face the risk of losing them, don't I?
So I am wondering: does using those brokers come with the risk that I end up owning nothing if I pick a very successful stock?
The broker uses risk management, margin calls, market hedging, capital reserves and insurance coverage to ensure you always get your shares back. You're not really in any risk.
Capital markets are far bigger than you can imagine and unless you're holding millions of shares short (which is unlikely as a retail investor), it's not going to be an issue even with the most volatile penny stock.
In the miniscule chance that the shares are unable to be acquired for whatever reason, you would probably get reimbursed at the current market price, although I don't know the regulatory specifics around this and you should discuss the details with your specific broker.
Fail early. You can achieve cohesion by letting go of everybody who cannot discuss politics in a civilized manner. Then you can be sure that the remaining team can discuss anything without any problems.
On the other hand, is it cohesion when the team is held together by outer influences?