For folks who don't know: In these HYSA, every time the interest pays (monthly), it triggers a taxable event. This might be important for you to consider. If you invest longer term in bonds and good securities instead, you could time your tax better (i.e.: sell when your income tax is lower; retirement).
In the US, you can get "lifetime/permanent insurance," which has a cash component that can be invested in bonds and enjoyed on much better tax terms (eating less into your bond's return).
I don’t know the source or veracity but that’s deliveries vs new orders.
Planes being delivered this quarter were probably ordered before COVID hit in my understanding so any order differences would take a long time to show up in the delivery numbers
"Airbus led in terms of aircraft orders, with Reuters reporting earlier this month that the manufacturer was on track to hit an all-time year-end order record of over 1,800. Boeing's order numbers were a little further behind, with only about 1,200 net orders logged.
When it comes to aircraft delivery targets, Airbus again pulled ahead. According to the latest analysis from Reuters, the Toulouse-based manufacturer is set to come out on top, with over 720 jets projected to be delivered to customers by the end of the year. Boeing also trails in this category, with delivery targets only sitting around 500."
Orders and deliveries are two different thing. Orders taken today are for years in the future, and deliveries made today were taken as orders years ago. This is true from Cessna up to Boeing.
They fired the CEO and didn't even inform Microsoft, who had invested a massive $20 billion. That's a serious lapse in judgment. A company needs leaders who understand business, not just a smart researcher with a sense of ethical superiority. This move by the board was unprofessional and almost childish.
Those board members? Their future on any other board looks pretty bleak. Venture capitalists will think twice before getting involved with anything they have a hand in.
On the other side, Sam did increase the company's revenue, which is a significant achievement. He got offers from various companies and VCs the minute the news went public.
The business community's support for Sam is partly a critique of the board's actions and partly due to the buzz he and his company have created. It's a significant moment in the industry.
Many of these guidelines essentially boil down to strategies for preventing over-engineering.
I concur; in my experience, premature optimization is one of the most expensive pitfalls. This primarily stems from the fact that circumventing potential issues too early leaves them unchallenged, resulting in the next team having to devise expensive solutions to address the unnecessary complexity.
The approach that was instilled in me is this: optimizations rely on presumptions, and these presumptions are often incorrect in the beginning.
Additionally, I've discovered that managing ego and understanding psychology play crucial roles in dissuading individuals from creating overly complex code.
Sort of, but people get defensive and start to argue that they _will_ need whatever it is at some point. But my argument is that, fine, you may be right, but if it's not needed _right at this very moment_ there's no reason to rush it in. Often the best way to prepare for the future is to do as little as possible - keeping things simple now makes adaptions much easier down the road if and when the need actually arises.
This concept is also in-line with Lean/Six-Stuff and identifying "wastes". Overproduction (analogous to over-engineering) is usually considered the worst type of waste because not only are you making something you don't need, you're spending effort that could have been used on something that you _do_ need.
And digging a step deeper: Over-engineering often happen because you think you might need the complexity later, but it will be more difficult or risky to extend the system at a later time.
E.g. starting out with a microservice architecture even though you only have 100 users, because you think it will be too difficult to re-architect a monolith the day you hit a million user.
So you should address why it feels like the code becomes less malleable over time.
I loved fish for about 5 years. My only gripe is that going back to Mac it wouldn’t play nice with the terminal color scheme, or the dark mode switch. Anyone found a way around that?
I use iTerm2 instead of the default Terminal app. In iTerm2, you can change the impossible-to-see blue and red to more reasonable values (or do what I do and use the Dracula Pro Themes).
According to the archive it was distributed in 1986. The Loma Prieta earthquake was in 1989.
I remember growing up in California with the constant earthquake drills, and a few bumps in the night to remind you why you practiced. There are probably hundreds of boring Earthquake Prep manuals for every company, but Apple being Apple they made it pop. The During and After sections got a laugh out of me.
I have a weird personal internal hobby of attempting to predict earthquakes....
I live in California, and am 5th gen san franciscan... I lived in Tahoe during the 1989 Loma Prieta... I was at football practice and my dad was sitting in the car waiting for practice to end, and he thought that kids were jumping on the bumper to 'mess with him' - but it was the earthquake! It shook his car in LAKE FN TAHOE...
Anyway - I am ZERO successful at predicting earthquakes, but I find it fun to pay attention to animals/weather and try to pull some cooky predictions, based on pseudo-science.
I've been through a lot of earthquakes, and I am not dead yet!
The scariest one was in ~1997 or so in seattle and I had to go back into the office at 9pm for some reason... and the building was ~80 years old and my office was on the 9th floor... the building started creaking and I thought it was hail hitting the windows - and then the whole building began to shake.
I have never teleported down 9 flights of stairs faster than that moment.
Several comments on this thread tend to slip into the trap of comparing countries. It's important to remember that population density plays a crucial role in financing public infrastructure.
Consider Argentina's case, for instance. Its size is comparable to India, yet it has a population smaller than Spain, making it a daunting task to fund extensive rail networks.
The same rationale can be applied to the US in comparison to smaller European nations.
Ultimately, promoting driving by making cars more affordable and investing in the highway system may indeed be the most adaptable and practical strategy for larger countries. Just something to ponder over.
It's a valid point to consider, although I'm not sure that looking at average density across the entire country makes a lot of sense since you don't have to apply the same solution nation-wide. When considering transportation options for a denser part of a country, like the US east coast Boston-Washington DC corridor, it's irrelevant how much empty space there is in Wyoming. The same is true on a smaller scale as well. Sure, the fact that Denver is so far away from any other large population centers means building a bunch of high-speed rail lines there might not make sense, but there's no reason Denver itself can't have better non-car transit options to get around the city and metro area.
Edit: The US east coast is always a particularly interesting use-case since it's more comparable to the density found in a lot of countries with far better transit while also being significantly richer. The Bos-Wash corridor has about the same population as Spain but it is significantly more dense and with 3x the GDP. Yet Spain has far better inter-city high-speed rail and other transit options.
I’d argue those cities in the east coast you mention are closer together and more densely populated. If you were to look at the northeast region by itself (Boston, New York, Washington), I bet its rail is comparable to similar European countries.
Each city has a decent metro rail system but definitely not up to western European standards. Boston's in particular is woefully in need of maintenance despite its importance in the city.
The rail connecting tbe cities is not very good. It costs upwards of $100 for a BOS->DC ticket and takes a day of travel.
I believe you're right that the US northeast is denser than many European countries, but the rail definitely isn't as good. The only "high-speed" rail line is the Acela, which is slow and expensive. Other rail options are even slower, not all that cheap either, and not very reliable. Compared to the rest of the US, northeast transit is better, but that's a pretty low bar.
You don't really need to fund extensive rail networks, just rail networks that get to a large enough share of the population to make it worthwhile
The vast majority of people don't need to go from anywhere to anywhere else in their countries every day, if you live in or around Philadelphia (first name that came to mind, no clue how good their transit system is) it doesn't really matter that there's people in Montana (again, I think they're fairly sparsely populated but not the point) who need to drive two hours to meet their neighbors
Looking at a population density map of argentina I don't see why it'd make more sense for them to invest in highways to nowhere rather than railways between the population centers. (Within reason of course, I'm not advocating for not maintaining infrastructure to less dense areas at all)
When you look at where people actually live the US is not that different from France or Poland and might even be in a better place for rail interconnections than Spain or Sweden
In the US, you can get "lifetime/permanent insurance," which has a cash component that can be invested in bonds and enjoyed on much better tax terms (eating less into your bond's return).
This is not financial advice.