If you told McDonald's to double their number of McRibs produced next year that would be an incredible challenge to meet. They already sell enough that it affects the global pork market, it'd be insane for them to double their demand for pork. What about other supplies, would this result in a reduced burger demand? How can they ensure they can respond appropriately either way? They probably run near fridge/storage capacity, does increasing this mean they need to also increase storage at restaurants?
That's a 2X increase. Now do it again and a half for a 5x. Crazy to say there's a "scaling wall" that once you "pierce" it's easy to scale up. It's the opposite, McDonald's already knows how to supply and sell X McRibs a year, there's no company that's ever sold 5X those McRibs so they have to figure it out themselves.
There's an old rule of thumb that each order of magnitude increase (10x) brings a whole new set of challenges.
Anecdotally I experienced this when scaling my software product from 1 --> 10 --> 100's --> 1000's etc. of users.
Thats not to say 2x can't be a substantial challenge, as you pointed out. It gets harder (and IMO more fun) when you're at the bleeding edge of your industry.
Haha I do taxes for a living, and the number of times people have said, "My buddy does this and he says it's fine." As if the fact that the person hasn't been caught is evidence that what they're doing is legal. It's what you mentioned, they feel clever and don't think they're doing anything illegal.
Historically, and happy to be proven wrong here, we've never seen a lab-leak of a novel virus cause a widespread outbreak. We have seen zoonotic transmission cause an epidemic/pandemic. So at least for me, I was working off of, "Is it likely that we're seeing something for the first time? Or is it likely this happened the way it's happened before?"
Depends on your definition of widespread. There have been level-4 leaks multiple times in the past. England had an outbreak from a level 4 lab in the past 20 years:
Houston, March 2019, my rent renewal was $1500/mo for a 12-month lease or $1500/mo for month-to-month or a new contract. Houston, October 2020, my rent renewal was $1500 for a 15-month lease or $2100/month for month-to-month or a new contract.
> Houston, March 2019, my rent renewal was $1500/mo for a 12-month lease or $1500/mo for month-to-month or a new contract. Houston, October 2020, my rent renewal was $1500 for a 15-month lease or $2100/month for month-to-month or a new contract.
Is there a typo here? You have to sign a longer lease but you are paying the same per month... that's a 0% increase.
And as for month-to-month, paying zero premium for a month-to-month lease is abnormal in pretty much every market...
But this isn't even the most confusing part of this thread. The most confusing is your next comment in the context of your concern about inflation.
> Signing a longer lease demonstrates that the new lease isn't like the old.
Okay. But if you earnestly believed what you're saying about inflation then locking in 2019 prices for 15 months instead of 12 months would be a GOOD thing for you! You'd be locking in a fixed price for a longer duration during a period of high inflation. I've signed a three year residential lease in markets with high housing inflation and felt like I was getting away with murder (and I was under-paying by about 500/mo toward the end of that lease). If you expect inflation, then you want longer leases at fixed-in prices!!!
The price per month of your housing has increased ZERO percent, AND your landlord is betting AGAINST rent inflation in their market.
So the rent didn't go up, the longer lease term was made longer and it was only the month to month that went up in price. The comparison is one you started making and only complain about when people call you on your made up numbers.
1. There's a giant difference between 80% and 30%.
2. That's not reflective of the rental market in Houston (I'm from there and going back for a graduation tomorrow), that's reflective of your landlord charging you for the convenience of not moving.
There's no details about this, however I believe it wasn't a "buyout incentive" it was a "don't talk shit about us" payment given that all the ex employees have only said things like: "After X years I've decided to leave basecamp."
In which case, not sure not offering the package would have gone well.
You remind me of the database guy who, when I told him we'd lost a replica in prod and asked when it would be back online, said, "It's not a high priority for us, there's still another replica."
A lot of the original libertarians were...socialists. The term today has been rebranded to mean strictly anarcho-capitalists but it originally included anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists.
$10 for the first bracket. The remaining untaxed income is $1, taxed at 90% = $0.90 tax.
But the Republican Party has spent a lot of money to make people think that the tax would be $90.90 (i.e,. a flat rate), which is why so many people are opposed to increasing the tax bracket rates...even though the actual affect is marginal to most people (even those affected).
