Jurgis

Money range to be invested would be helpful. Below $1M? Above? Also like Green King said, what's the percentage they look to invest into business compared to their total savings?

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/12/16464142/hyperloop-one-virgin-richard-branson-investment

Possible. Unless you are expert in the field, it's difficult to know how much his complaints are whining and how much they are truthful. And even if you are in the field, it might be not easy to know. Let me give you an example. AI. People who are currently getting multi millions from Google/Facebook/Microsoft/etc./etc. got very little funding or recognition during AI winter. Nobody would continue to fund the exploration of well-tilled AI ground. And none of the top-tier journals wanted to continuously publish articles that were spawned from work done in the 80s ... until the tech caught up with the data and performance needs of the AI work done in the 80s and suddenly they became heroes again with huge funding/publications/prestige/etc. Does this mean that AI researchers were rightly not funded because the field was "studied to death"? Does it mean that they were maliciously not funded by short sighted new stars who moved on? Does it mean that the funding process is broken? I don't think there's a simple answer to this. There are situations where further funding for fruit flies is not productive. There are situations where the new stars are short sighted. There are situations where glory and results come back to being needed/interesting/productive. There are situations where the glory is past and never comes back. Edit: University tenure is somewhat a solution for this issue. Yes, it's not a complete solution: it doesn't mean that you gonna get enough funding for research machines/materials/students. Yes, it has other problems that likely will be raised even on this thread. But it's an attempt to somewhat influence this issue.

Interestingly Tilson was (is) right about a number of issues facing NFLX. And yet they still have not affected NFLX stock price, the stock is 10x from 2010 and is still hitting the highs. ::)

I believe at least in Computer Science more and more conferences do reviews with author's names and identifying information removed. Does not guarantee completely blind results, since sometimes it's possible to guess who did the work and wrote the paper, but still.

Currently in free Prime Reading list - read free if you have Prime.

I agree with this, but with a caveat: In my experience, transparency works best when it's actually transparent in all factors, not just work. Let's say your coworker is missing some deadlines, you notice it for a bit and in the spirit of transparency, you mention it. In the same spirit, he says that he's going thru a breakup, has a new baby, or what have you, and therefore his mind has been elsewhere. A fully transparent relationship is when you already know your coworker is on the rocks with his girlfriend, or his wife is expecting, or whatnot, because you share these things. And so you may preemptively re-allocate resources to avoid the situation entirely. Right. That's why I talked about trust and internal buyin. 8)

From the headline I thought that BRK bought 9% of Catholic Church... ::)

I haven't read the book yet. I've listened to a bunch of Dalio's talks and discussed the principles he mentioned with some people. I have some previous experience with radical transparency from another context.

Spek, I mostly agree with you, although I look at this from another point of view. Radical transparency (and idea meritocracy) does not have to equal stress. It works well, but... only within groups that really trust each other and where everyone has internal buyin for it. It can work within a couple - in family or work duo/partnership. It may work within a tightly knit group of maybe up to 5 people. Once you go above that it's tough to have the internal buyin and trust. It becomes a management tool (weapon) that people wield but not necessarily like or support from inside. And then I agree it's a recipe for stress and people either ignoring the tool/method, pretending to adhere/use it or exploiting it for politics/infighting/etc. In other words, in ideal world this could be a great tool/method. With imperfect humans its applicability seems to be limited.

Ray Dalio says that he likes Netflix and Twitter as companies. He also said that his "Principles"/system are being tested in large Silly Valley company(ies?). At Netflix or Twitter then? Any other guesses what company(ies?) could be testing his system? Any info from companies that may be testing it? Would you be more likely to invest into a company that tried his system? More likely to short it? Indifferent?

Every time Joe Kernan opens his mouth a kitten dies.

Based on this Boston is not a bad place to be in. 8) (Although I agree with their conclusion that Amazon won't choose Boston.)

Boston is not cheap, but way cheaper than SF/Silly Valley. Chicago is cheap, but the question is whether they can recover from their issues or if they do a Detroit. I am not RE investor/expert. 8)

I wonder if Musk realizes that he might end up competing with himself. If the number of launches goes up exponentially (sic), the demand at current price points is unlikely to go exponential, so the price points would have to drop (significantly? exponentially?). In the end, a large number of launches may not bring as much money as expected (to finance Mars). Edit: this https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16384096/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-mars-rocket-development-business-demand raises similar and possibly more detailed questions.

Hm, I would be careful about this. IIRC, Rick Guerin did something similar, and he ended up selling his Berkshire shares to Buffett @ $40 a piece to satisfy a margin call. Works until BRK falls 50% as it has done 2 or 3 times.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-29/the-equifax-hack-has-all-the-hallmarks-of-state-sponsored-pros

LOL. In other words, instead of sending and receiving emails, you'll be able to post something you write on the Internetz and intended recipient can search for it. 8)

I'd say Picasso, but we have to wait for him to take over a public company. You can already buy his paintings though. 8)

Which is why you would use Kelly's. 8) I hate that damn formula! :D Just because it is precise, does not mean it is accurate. It fools people in that way. In reality, we are all probably not-so-great at determining exact probabilities and expected outcomes. Take the common-sense lesson from the kelly formula: safer stocks with higher potential outcomes deserve more of your investment dollar than risky stocks with lower potential outcomes. But most people don't need a formula to tell them that... I agree with you, but your summary can be made looser: Safer stocks with same potential outcomes (EV) deserve more of your investment dollar than risky stocks with same potential outcomes. 8)

Yeah, I understand all that.

In other news Hugh Hefner died.

Which is why you would use Kelly's. 8)

Houston is mostly flooding which is mostly not covered (and what's covered mostly comes from Fed program). OTOH, business insurance apparently covers flooding, so that's that. Don't know what deductibles business insurances have. Percentage deductibles sounds crappy for homeowners. My deductible is probably something like $1K or $2K. But then I'm in MA and it's possible that insurance policies with such deductible in FL are just not affordable.

He may not be shutting down his Berkshire analysis... 8)