Tsla is 1.4T market cap, so it's almost like *ELON-stock is going to double in 1 day. It will go from 4% to 8% of qqq in 1 day.
It'll happen a week or a month after IPO date though? It took fb/meta 1 year and then it entered as 1% qqq. TSLA entered 3 years after IPO so probably a small percentage.
Tsla is 2% vti (2T AUM). QQQ is 400B AUM. So add those two and you get $56B of purchasing. This seems like the amount they want to raise via IPO in total in the news, so the banks who do the IPO can sell it all guaranteed.
But people will want to buy it before it gets into the passive funds... So... Post inclusion market cap will be higher than we expect?
Checkout the movie "The Lost Leonardo" for a glimpse into the weird world of art attribution. tl;dw is that there are big financial incentives to attributing one way or another.
Why do you say rent control reduces the incentive to build more housing?
To me it seems the opposite: Rent control means supply goes down, so available building & land prices go up. These prices going up means an opportunity for builders who are good businessmen because they are going to make a margin on their investment, the bigger the investment the bigger upside.
Another intuition is with rent control it's hard to extract new value from an old building, so that also incentivizes tearing it down and squeezing more units into the land.
In SF, rent control exists on all buildings built before 1979. It appears to me that people who prioritize new builds pay a huge premium for them. I think this particular rule also incentivizes tearing pre 1979 structures down, vs the no rent control newer buildings can continue to have growth in the value extracted from them.
It reduces the incentive to build because it reduces the ROI on a new build and reduces the control the owner has over the property (places with rent control are notoriously tenant-friendly, meaning the risk of taking 12+ months to evict a tenant has to be priced into the project as well).
Assuming 200 acres is 0.57x0.57 miles. If you fly at 15 mph you can do 15 lines in 30 mins. The lines would be 200 feet apart, and you'd move 22 feet per second. 15MP images would be 10 pixels per foot and motion blur with 240fps would be 1.1 inches.
0.57 x 0.57 miles is a good estimate. The lot is more or less square.
Yes. Maintaining 15mph is tough because of elevation changes. The land has a 1,200 foot tall ridge in it, so the drone must gain (and lose) 1,200 feet across that 0.57mi span. Which is steeper than the drone can do while maintaining a forward speed of 15 mph.
Additionally, SFM algorithms struggle with repetitive environments like pine forests, where there are not clear points or lines they can align. GPS data helps somewhat, but if the pictures are too sparse then it can get confused and start stitching images together incorrectly. Additionally, too few images lowers the fidelity of the output and causes strange gaps and black spots in clearings (where the clearing is visible in one pass but obscured in another.)
Finally, radio transmissions require two flights due to that ridge. I need to fly once on either side or I lose signal. There is no accessible point on the property I can maintain visual line of sight across the entire span, and "mountain" is a pretty good radio signal attenuator.
I'd LOVE to have some automation help in developing a flight plan, as right now it's manual, and I'm creating little segments myself, individually placing points and grids. Several tools claim to support automatic elevation, but none of them do so well when you have a 1000+ foot cliff or a narrow stream bed that has cut 20 feet into the earth in your environment.
Same here. I feel like Google's products have become such a labyrinth of features, settings, integrations, separate (but not really) products, that navigating them requires an expert. Sadly, I don't see a way back - each new additional feature or product is just bolted on top and adds more complexity. Given the corporate structure of Google, there's zero chance of an org-wide restructuring of the labyrinth.
Google isn't a startup, they aren't desperate to impress anyone. I don't even think they consider "AI" to be a product, which is probably correct. These AI enabled features are background processes that ideally integrate into products over time in ways that don't require you to explicitly know they're even there.
Given how widely used Google Docs is, for serious work, disrupting people's workflows is not a good thing. Google has no problem being second, they aren't going to die in the next three months just because people on Twitter say so.
Great question. So the corporate travelers actually do not get the most value/benefit from points travel because corporate travelers already fly on business. Flying on business class is just a given. Corporate travelers also do not have as much flexibility with their travel schedule or destinations.
It's really the average consumer who has never flown business class that gets the most value and just 1 credit card bonus offer of 60,000 points can get them that flight. Some sign up offers are 150,000 points or more. To the average consumer, flying on business class is a dream experience.
In terms of math:
When flying on points, you can redeem business class flights at 4-8 cents per point. So if you're earning your points 1.5 cents per dollar (eg. Chase Freedom Unlimited), each dollar you spend can earn you 6%-12% back (1.5 points earned * 4-8 cents per point). You can redeem first class for even more at 12-20 cents per point.
This is just the low end. You also have category multipliers like 3X points earned on travel or 5X points on flights with some cards.
The problem is that these saver fare business and first class flights using points are hard to find and can take a lot of time. So Roame is stepping in to make it easier.
> corporate travelers actually do not get the most value/benefit from points travel because corporate travelers already fly on business. Flying on business class is just a given.
I’m not sure what your background is, but this seems like a starkly false assumption to me. I’ve worked in multiple industries, including consulting (the one most famously known for frequent corporate travel) and I wouldn’t even come close to saying it’s a “given”. Only very high levels executives or the very elite companies fly their employees business class. In my years and years of weekly travel for consulting, my company paid for business class a grand total of 0 times (I’ve flown business a handful of times, but always upgraded with my own points). My colleague has only flown business paid for by the company once on a particularly long international flight.
I think you’re really shooting yourself in the foot by not paying more attention to corporate travelers. Corporate travelers are by _far_ the most likely to have credit card or loyalty points to spend, but it seems like you’re just brushing them off.
For my diabetic mother who has really bad legs, or for me who has had back issues his whole life, or for someone who is treated like they deserve to be there in first class instead of being cattle called into a tiny seat with a bag of pretzels for fourteen hours…
Different priorities.
Flying business or first class is not something I do often (I’ve flown a single digit number of times on either, and all but once on points) but when I do the amount of stress that is relieved is actually very significant. It’s hard to understand until you’ve done it.
And it may not matter to you! And that’s also okay.
I don't have readily available hard data, but flying first or business class is glamorous and an aspirational luxury product. I believe the reason why the average consumer wants to buy luxury goods like Hermes, Chanel, Gucci, etc., is the same reason they would want to experience first and business class.
I feel like we must have different perceptions of the "average consumer." Nobody I know has any aspirations of spending several thousand dollars on a handbag.
Maybe it's different when you only talk to people who make at least six figures.
Actually, sadly enough, a big portion of the people who buy those bags (or similarly luxury items that have fine non-luxury equivalents) don’t have the money to.
Often, people buy these things because it makes them feel better, in that they feel they’ve earned the right to have something nice.
And that is one of the reasons that people tend to make decisions that don’t get them out of poverty. Because sometimes feeling spendy makes people happy, in the short term.
It’s why you see so many lower-middle class people driving around in a used/leased Lexus or BMW. It isn’t that a Ford or Mazda wouldn’t suffice.
Moreover, if you can get it for free, with points, that feel like they cost you nothing? Hell yeah.
(This is also why the Marlboro/Parliament catalogs which made people collect UPC codes for various items were so popular. Nobody needed that junk. But a duffel bag and a laptop for nothing but these random barcodes I’ve collected?! Hell yeah, I’m rich!)
reply