silverbax @ silverbax @lemmy.world

Posts

20

Comments

224

Joined

2 yr. ago

Track em down and lock em up. They hate America and want to kill anyone who supports our democracy.

They're also stupid enough to be terrorists who announce their attacks ahead of time.

Syria would beg to differ.

Iran would beg to differ.

Yemen would beg to differ.

Google: "Our search results are better than ever!"

also Google: "Publicly pointing out how you gamed our search results will result in us manually deleting your site from our results. Also, nothing to see here."

Or we could just work remotely, which is far more productive.

The index fund options in many 401Ks underperform - this is just across the average, not all 401ks. Some 401Ks have general stock market index funds, some only offer index funds in specific sectors or target metrics.

The analysis I ran started with the question: 'given the average 401k, compare returns including average match against general stock market index funds'.

My assumption going in was that 401Ks would return better results because of the employer match, but that's not the case on average. The average investor would have significantly more money if they'd just invested in 'market' index funds, and it wasn't even close.

That being said, 401Ks or general ETF funds are still risky and inferior when compared to pensions and social security.

401Ks, in general, are a terrible substitute for pensions and social security. The GOP wanted to push Americans' retirement funds into the stock market, and they did that with 401Ks.

I ran some basic analysis a few weeks ago, and even with the corporate matching on 401Ks, due to the poor fund investment options available in most 401Ks, they underperformed index funds over a 30 year period.

Yes, that means many people who contributed to their 401K at full amount, even with matching, have less money than someone who just invested in SPY or VOO over the same period.

Nobody should be listening to Jamie Dimon, unless you want to be broke.

Grant Cardone? Not even remotely credible, this is a joke.

I've thought for years - long before Trump ever ran for president - that he's just a trust fund kid who spends his annual allowance on pretending to be a business man.

Basically he just flew around the country in a private plane, wore a bad suit and claimed to be in business, but no business he ever engaged in actually made money. His family real estate holdings existed before he was playing 'business' and his own investments have either failed completely or, in the case of New York real estate, underperformed compared to the market.

His family made him rich by the time he was nine years old, and he wrote a book about what a great businessman he was (despite not actually having built any of that wealth himself) and then he just pretended to be a business magnate until NBC came along and let him do it on television.

There is a significant number of people who can't differentiate between image and reality. If a writer creates horror books, they believe that writer is secretly a serial killer or similar. If an actor plays a stripper in a movie, they believe that actor really is someone who would work in the sex trade. They can't imagine it's an illusion. So for them, Trump is a magnate despite the evidence.

Speed, for one. 5 minutes vs 30 minutes to an hour to be fully charged. Makes a big difference for road trips where you need to recharge on the way.

Anyone have knowledge of Nio and the long term viability? Are they targeting the US, or just China and Europe?

EDIT: found some info that Nio is targeting selling in the US in 2025.

'A massive tech exodus' in the headline, then names 3 large companies who never actually moved to Texas, and 3 companies nobody's ever heard of.

This isn't journalism.

The problem is not that driverless cars won't be viable. The problem is the same as several other tech developments where a few startups promise tech that hasn't matured yet, taking in billions of 'stupid' money from investors who are greedy but not knowledgeable about the underlying viability of what can realistically be done in a decade.

One hundred years from now? Driverless cars will be old news, so common or maybe even surpassed with something newer. But investors want a 10 year explosion of cash, not a 50 year investment.

Lemmy and Reddit users are always simultaneously saying 'pay people a living wage!' while also saying 'no ads, and make it free forever'.

Ah yes, SalesForce, one of the entrenched bastions supporting dinosaur companies. Apparently they suddenly have their finger on the pulse of the modern workforce, despite not being connected to it.

Who owns the company is irrelevant in the fight for fair wages and working conditions.

There's no need for a business owner to pay employees out of their own pockets, that's not a sustainable business, regardless of whether it's Bezos or just a garage owner with two employees. The Post, as a business runs profitably just fine on its own, with more than enough revenue to pay their employees fairly.

My guess if you buy a HP printer, they send a Brother laser printer, which is going to make consumers much happier.