Yep, this.

A unit (multi-dwelling property, not necessarily an apartment) might cost 650k here, but only rent for 500$/w. 25kpa is a 4% return on that principle, before expenses (property management, maintenance, rates/taxes etc).

The only context in which it makes sense is if capital gains/land value goes up, which it has historically but that's no guarantee.

Houses make all these numbers even worse - higher upfront expense (land value) and lower rental yield (they rent for more, but tenants prefer a better house/dwelling more than they care about a back yard, so cost goes up more than rent does)

If you're upfront about the provenance and amount of effort that went into it, is there really a problem?

I feel like the issue is people contributing code they don't understand and presenting it as if they do.

Quite possibly never tested, of maybe only tested their problem and not if it broke anything else.

Not quite possibly. 99.99999% likely.

If he gets awarded a huge number of shares for hitting market cap goals, existing shareholders are diluted to his benefit.

How is the framing wrong?

Basically a merger.

When the numerical differences are that big I'd always be a little suspicious of something not operating correctly.

I haven't seen ARM outperform X86 by a margin that large anywhere else.

1988 would like a word.

This is a wild take.

In theory, competition is what prevents this. If these small companies can sell products that provide more value then consumers buy the alternative.

I think the problem today is that it's extremely difficult to tell when you're buying quality or a brand. If there's a 40$ and a 100$ backpack, often the 100$ version does not actually have meaningfully improved quality - just better marketing.

The same goes for tons of products - brands nowadays are something companies build while they're young and relentlessly smash into the ground as they age because the value you're destroying isn't obvious. Shareholders get good results, and objectively it's probably the correct financial decisions for the company - doesn't make it any less shit.

I don't think it's actually that hard - 5 minutes of skimming on Reddit will do a lot. You can also usually see Wirecutter's recommendations (even if they paywall the full article). People just don't care upfront but complain later.

LLMs really like the "it's not this, it's that" framing. The short punchy lists/sequences also feel off to me.

I think it's also the reuse of the same strategy repeatedly throughout the article. I think most human writers often feel put off if they use the same literary device too much.

I don't buy that there's a segment of customers willing to pay to get rid of some but not all ads.

The entire point of premium as it already stands is ad removal. None of the other features are relevant (I don't even know what they are)

Queuing is pretty handy a feature. Long click then "add to queue" while clicking around in the app while something else is playing. Smart downloading means there's something to watch while offline without having to explicitly pre-downloaded something. If you're a video quality aficionado, there's better picture quality available. An in-app sponsorblock equivalent was being beta tested but I think it went away. YouTube music except that not all the videos are licensed. There's a couple others. But yeah, ad-free viewing is the primary reason I pay for Premium. Supporting creators is another.

The question is how annoying the ads are. One 15 second ad before an hour long video, I'm annoyed but I'm not going to flip the table over. 5 minutes of ads every 30 mins? At some point I'm getting annoyed enough to cancel my subscription.

I imagine it's just be keeping the equipment warm and moving, especially for something like a steam turbine. Partial output sounds like a reasonable guess to me.