How much do we think that it should have cost, if everything was perfectly optimized, to get to the moon? 50b instead of 100b? so ok, 50% was pork, and that's bad, but let's not overstate it and instead allow a little joy in our lives.

also the original apollo program was about 300b in today's dollars, so seems like things have always been a little porky.

So if we take it as an assumption that density increases housing stock, there is lots of evidence that density drives down prices of existing land/home values.

[1] ok it's not an internet adage. I invented it and joke with friends about it

I take both waymo's and lyft/uber all the time in sf and waymo's are way slower. I'd estimate it at 10-15% slower. Once the novelty of a waymo wears off you realize that they drive like a high anxiety teenager and going 15 mph on a 15 mph road, coming to gentle full stop at every stop sign, and being very tentative on turns and passing people all add up to a very slow ride.

You're right though it definitely feels safer.

I don't know if this coincided with trend of getting an area code tattoo to signify where you're from, but that also is something that is done by some.

I've been a founder, and I've been a key early employee. It is very different.

That's a legitimate question I haven't done the research on this. It would seem though that usually it's a municipal employee, probably a union job, so probably paid pretty well (relative to say an uber driver). Also that cost for the driver would be double if you half the size of the bus and run them twice as much which would be a better experience for passengers. It would seem like the cost of drivers could be a real impact but this is me being handwavy I haven't crunched any numbers.

Certainly though if all they're doing is parroting back conclusions backed by "research" that the exec who hired them wants to hear then they aren't providing much value, other than perhaps providing air cover when some decision, any decision, is better than no decision and gridlock.

"They are not brought in to solve problems"

I've known people that worked for consultancies and the biggest value add they think they have brought is when the problem is the rivalries, politics, and squabbaling has led to inaction and they've needed outside support to come in who don't care about these things.

Perhaps we should hope for companies to have leadership teams where they are able to cut through this intransigence, but unfortunately all too often with old companies stuck in their ways this isn't the case.

This isn't true. You will have put money into the property to keep its value up, also writing off all of those expenses, so that you can still rent it out.

This is a leveraged investment (meaning you have a mortage). What that means is for your 20% down payment (the actual money you invest), that 3.7% writeoff on income can be an 18.5% cash on cash yield (ROI) in which you pay no taxes, ever. Few properties on the market can get you a better yield than that. If your ultimate yield is less than that you can roll those losses over year over year, so that then later if/when you get more yield you still* don't have to pay any taxes. It's a really big tax loophole and is the reason Donald Trump pays almost nothing in taxes (and he admitted as much in the presidential debate).

*I own 3 properties in buffalo, one of the best rent to value markets in the US, and it's hard to find better yield than that even in that market. https://simplepassivecashflow.com/rv/

My guess would be that parents are constantly taking photos and getting in the way of kids playing, or their performance, and it's to encourage parents to just enjoy their kids. This sounds like a pretty good rule to me. I'd have to guess that during their childhood your children will have multiple orders of magnitude more photos taken of them. I'd only worry memories will be lost by an overwhelming amount of media being saved about them.

I don't mean about looking someone in the eye, but I do mean cutting through a multiple months long dance to get someone money when they are in a full sprint growing their business, or sitting on their board and meddling when you don't have experience operating a company. I think VCs can learn something from that.

They are notorious for outsourcing their due diligence and often not even paying attention to it. They pride themselves on moving fast, not diligence.

I liked the investment thesis of "get founders money and get out of their way" and hopefully other VCs learned something from it, but they certainly lacked a lot of control in how they operated.

I'm curious where you work (not specifically, I'm talking about generally the industry), because it's not been my experience either as a manager nor my understanding of anyone else in silicon valley or large or mid sized software companies. I've managed engineers who get paid more than me, never have had unilateral hiring or firing powers, and don't control much decision making power other than my ability to hopefully influence engineers or upper management.

I could imagine your case being true in other places (finance, for example) where managers usually aren't engineers and there is much more of a fiefdom organizational structure, but it hasn't been my experience in software.

Now to be clear they shouldn't have been that big (clearly), but leveling people was not the problem.