How do you avoid creating a slum with dense low-income housing?

Seems like highly distributed low-cost, low-unit housing might work decently.

Sounds great in theory, but what do you do when someone starts sharing sexist or biased opinions. Or starts to personally degrade another employee or team?

For a responsible company, there are always repercussions, it is disingenuous to lead employees to believe otherwise.

The problem is the lack of threat validation by police. There are many options now to validate threats, we have tech that can see through walls, robotics, drones. The fact is you have a very real chance of being shot by police without a trial and based on a phone-call.. and we are considering that a problem with the phone company?

I was surprised how easy it was to get an EV cert. The validators work from an offshore call-center and use sites like whitepages.com to lookup the business. They then call the number listed (you could have updated the listing just before). When they call you simply have to say "I am ... and my position is X at Y company. Then hand the phone to someone else who says something similar". There was no individual identity verification.

The vast majority of consumers are not going to lookup an FDIC number, and even if they did, it is still not optimal since banks regularly merge which would cause confusion.

Instead I'd like to see a browser that generates such a noisy fingerprint that it is useless: Each time I start an 'anonymous' session, grab a fingerprint from a pool that is sufficiently similar to mine that things render properly (matching resolution for example) but that has also been used by thousands/millions of others.

The domain name system already handles this by enforcing uniqueness and leveraging the market.

You can construct a trade that will make you money assuming your assumption is correct (that that company will underperform the market).

Otherwise, buying existing assets (such as houses) will increase the price which will trigger increased production of that asset.

Are you saying that a company should invest 100% back into itself? There are a few very successful companies that do that, but the vast majority do not. Most companies return value to shareholders regularly in the form of dividends (or buybacks).

No need to be an accredited investor.

It could be that cutting costs is as simple as slowing down or pausing the expansion.

Why not say "nuclear" or "radiation"? It seems very unlikely that the entire species will completely forget about the concept of nuclear radiation.

I'd just look at it in a slightly different, perhaps more optimistic way. The fact that this investment has the highest ROI means that society as a whole would benefit from injecting additional capital into that investment.

In that sense, you're right that other investors have a less desirable price. However in theory at least, everyone is better off since that investment now has more capital, and is able to produce more output, positively contributing to the overall economy and increasing the size of the overall pie.

They start putting pressure on engineering managers to make sure their team is "working". Their team clearly needs more discipline and those 'slackers' need to be cut.

What they don't see is that the engineer tossing the ball figured out that the solution they were about to spend 2 weeks coding can be achieved by leveraging an existing library requiring only a couple days effort.