expense as a percentage of gdp is a nonsense number. expense as a percentage of the actual budget makes far more sense. why are we accepting silly statistics here?
There are pros and cons to every statistic. Percent of GDP accounts for the fact that the economy is growing, which means more to tax. I used it primarily because the article does. I think percent of receipts makes more sense as receipts are essentially the agency’s product.
There are so many issues with your post that I feel like I'm on reddit?
It's not a radical idea, or really even unpopular, to incentivize child birth through tax policy.
Insane initial implication that having children is a duty we all innately have to society aside: you can't tax an age bracket differently let alone at point of sale.
I'm going to have to look into this because while that sounds like an incredible future, I don't see it. we have thousands of custom classes and dozens of material themes, can Figma work with that and then generate a component using our core custom styles?...
Tailwind simplifies part of that problem since you don't need to map to the myriad of custom class names in use, rather you solely need to preprocess off the tailwind config.
Companies like Bifrost (YC W22) are working on this problem and already automatically generate React components from Figma autolayout designs.
I also love spotify as a general product. But the UX grievances are fair and representative of tge standard product thrash where far too many people are involved in making design decisions that ultimately end up punishing users
this is a good summary of why I pay zero attention to power point decks and blog posts. there is never a right answer and it's just people masturbating in circles. it's not rocket science, half of the time it's not even computer science. design patterns, at a certain point, become full of themselves.
Wasn't a Twitter employee arrested a while back for spying on Saudi dissidents on KSA's behalf? Looks like they just figured they could cut the middlemen.
In the future, if an acquisition gets offered at some x price and the stock rallies to almost x, then the delta (smart move) is to short, not buy. If you buy, the most you are going to get is that 5% bump. If you short, you can make 100%.
Most pending M&A deals will get arbed to almost perfection, so I doubt the strategy you're suggesting here will make money, for 2 reasons:
1. it's a lot more likely that you're going to lose 5% than make 100% (in reality you're making more like 20%, because the stock won't go to 0 if the deal doesn't go through). The bet will actually look something like 20% to make 20% or 80% to lose 5%. The expectation of that is 0.
2. For many names borrow fees will shoot up and there will be limited availability to short. So you'll have to take that into account. The fees can get particularly painful if the deal drags on for a long time.
How does the Twitter share price stop you from living your life?
The current price is $42. If you need money, sell some portion of it.
$42 is probably a fair risk-adjusted price as the board will likely ultimately settle for a lower sale price to avoid a very public litigation about its true bot content.
Don't look at $54.29 as the "correct" price. Evaluate the spectrum of probabilistic outcomes.
