Yeah I also managed to run the web process without any issue:
```
heroku run bash -a myapp
$ bundle exec puma -C config/puma.rb
[All fine]
```
It's definitely coming from their router. Opened a ticket 1h ago without reply so far, and it makes you wonder why they even bother to have a status page.
But the chances for a Trump win were still above 20% if I remember me well. So it's not really a big surprise that Trump won. These are the kind of the odds in russian roulette. Nobody would be surprised if someone got killed playing it while the most likely outcome is to survive.
I don't think "less hard on your digestive system" is an advantage but rather a disadvantage. Just like "less hard on you bones" is not really an advantage for astronauts that spend a couple of weeks/months in space.
If you want to have a healthy body you have to put it under a stress level for which it was designed by evolution. I.e. exercise once in a while and don't just sit in front of your computer, eat enough fibres and harder to digest food, etc
I agree that Brazil has in general high taxes (especially for what you get in return from the government) but don't just assume this is true in every situation.
I'm a gringo "permanently" living in Brazil and from a tax standpoint it was actually better for me to open a Brazilian company. You don't have to pay taxes on dividends you get from Brazilian companies but you do have to pay taxes on dividends from foreign companies. + Depending on your margins opting for the "simples" tax regime may give you lower corporate taxes than a US/EU company
Hello, I was comparing, and opening in USA would be almost the same that having the "Simples".
In Brazil you don't pay tax on dividends because you pay higher taxes before. Otherwise you would paying double times. There are hidden taxes till you have the "dividends". And are you aware of the "Imposto de Renda" for companies and people?
I am very curious what formula you used to compare and reach the conclusion that in Brazil it's lower. This is also against some studies http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
The chance to be involved in an armed robbery are small in every big city in the world. Based on anecdotes people will always over or under exaggerate the chances.
Just to give a counter example: I lived in Brussels, Philadelphia, Oslo, Sao Paulo... the only place about which I have a first hand "armed robbery" story was in Oslo of all places: a coworker got actually shot in the back when he bravely (but stupidly) turned his back and said "no, you are not going to shoot me".
He was lucky and was only a couple of weeks out but he carried his X-rays of the bullet with him because nobody would believe him otherwise.
I watched those a while ago. They might seem really long at first but I can confirm that they are really good. I was fascinated by how much more sense our emotions and behaviour make if you learn a bit more about how the brain is wired and how it evolved.
This comment deserves more votes. Buffett's argument in favour of skill is very persuasive, not to mention genuinely funny. Here's an extract:
--------------------------------------
I would like you to imagine a national coin-flipping contest. Let's assume we get 225 million Americans up tomorrow morning and we ask them all to wager a dollar. They go out in the morning at sunrise, and they all call the flip of a coin. If they call correctly, they win a dollar from those who called wrong. Each day the losers drop out, and on the subsequent day the stakes build as all previous winnings are put on the line. After ten flips on ten mornings, there will be approximately 220,000 people in the United States who have correctly called ten flips in a row. They each will have won a little over $1,000.
Now this group will probably start getting a little puffed up about this, human nature being what it is. They may try to be modest, but at cocktail parties they will occasionally admit to attractive members of the opposite sex what their technique is, and what marvelous insights they bring to the field of flipping.
Assuming that the winners are getting the appropriate rewards from the losers, in another ten days we will have 215 people who have successfully called their coin flips 20 times in a row and who, by this exercise, each have turned one dollar into a little over $1 million. $225 million would have been lost, $225 million would have been won.
By then, this group will really lose their heads. They will probably write books on "How I turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning." Worse yet, they'll probably start jetting around the country attending seminars on efficient coin-flipping and tackling skeptical professors with, "If it can't be done, why are there 215 of us?"
Thanks. I am commenting on this just so I can refer to the full text whenever someone claims that Warren Buffett believes in the Efficient Market Hypothesis (something which appears to be the case from this extract, and which numerous commenters on this story seem to vehemently argue ;) )
For posterity, the key quote for those looking to intuit Buffett's view comes on page 13: "I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market."
Well, the excerpt corresponds to your view, but not the full article. I'd be curious to know what you make of the arguments Buffett presents against this view.
> I'd be curious to know what you make of the arguments Buffett presents against this view.
I read the entire article, and the problem is that it cannot distinguish between an effect and chance, and many have an incentive to call chance an effect. Also there's the announcement effect to consider -- once a player has a track record, people start reacting to his moves by buying the same stocks, after which the track record is no longer meaningful data.
The WSJ Dartboard Contest was a terrific test that could have shown a real effect, if there is one, and anyone who produced reliable returns would get a lot of free publicity. So there was a big incentive, but no one could show an effect. It was the closest thing to science I've seen, and it supported the null hypothesis.
Plus if you have a million researches in your area of research a 1 per million chance your results are wrong is still no assurance. Should statistically happen to one of the researchers in your area.
