Each of the asset classes you listed has risks. Bonds are subject to term (i.e. inflation) and credit (i.e. default) risk.

Bonds may be less volatile than equities and commodities, but they can definitely go down (e.g. 2022).

The only free lunch in investing is diversification.

- They can maneuver around double-parked cars and trucks

- They can switch up the route when there's construction

- There are no tracks tripping up pedestrians and cyclists

- They're [probably] easier to get to a service hub for maintenance

- They don't require overhead wires to provide electricity

- I would guess they're cheaper to purchase and maintain, but don't have a reference

One area where street cars _might_ win is noise. Busses can be loud.

>>> 1//2

I learned a ton about WWII from this series on YouTube…here’s the week when the UK sinks the French navy: https://youtu.be/gRR683NJOwc

IMHO, handling it well would mean recalling and replacing the defective mainboards (so long as they’re in warranty). They must have a ton of brand equity / good will if customers are that willing to roll up their sleeves.

Cloud-init can be clumsy to get going, but it’s possible.

You obviously shouldn’t pay to cover every edge case, but if you can it’s worth paying for the ones you value.

I have often wondered about this myself, and believe there's some nuance to acknowledge:

- Yes, it is absolutely the case that individuals often carry teams. It does sometimes feel like they're subsidizing others' salaries.

- There's an old adage in advertising that goes: we know 50% of our budget is wasted on ineffective ads, we just don't know which 50%. The same probably holds true for organizations allocating wages.

- People go through different phases of their lives, where they can devote more or less energy to work. This fact may lend credence to a compensation structure that's based on bonuses and equity versus salary. Flat salary bands seem to discourage meritocracy without this adjustment.

- Organizations themselves are also dynamic. Consider a small org seeded by a prolific worker. They make the org successful, so the org grows and necessarily dilutes the talent (i.e. reversion to the mean).

- Does an organization have an incentive to "slow down" it's most prolific workers so everyone else can keep up? Conversely, should they develop a culture that speeds everyone else up?

- Should / do prolific workers self-select into higher-performance organizations, e.g. after getting fed up being a big fish in a small pond?

- Team dynamics are undeniable; consider two prolific workers with different styles clashing.

I personally would love to work on a team of superstars who mesh, and can capture disproportionate value relative to large, slow, mediocre orgs. The hard part is finding one and keeping it together.