Pelagic

I don't know if I personally would use a service like this, I tend to like having my own room. That said, I do think there is a market for it. Especially for people travelling when hotel space is short due to something like a major sporting event, concert, Mardi Gras etc. If you're in town that weekend and have a hotel room to yourself the price of the other half of your room will go up as it gets closer to the event, people booking at the last minute and realizing there is nothing left available. Maybe your half would sell for more than you originally paid to book the entire room to someone who really needed it.

The Martian - Andy Weir http://www.amazon.com/The-Martian-Novel-Andy-Weir-ebook/dp/B00EMXBDMA Fast paced science/space exploration novel. It was available for free on PDF for a while, it might still be although it's available in paper as well.

Sounds kind of like AirBnB for hotel rooms. I don't know how the hotels would feel about it or what their policy, if any, is on re-selling a portion of your room. Sharing a hotel room with someone you just met might be a little scary the first couple times. Perhaps if you go through with building the website enable users to add a bio about themselves and receive feedback from other users. I can see it now - Jack Smith (3/5 stars) - Cleanly, smells ok, snores loudly. You might consider approaching hotel's with your program and allowing users to book directly through them at the half-room rate knowing they will be paired with another guest. Who knows you could throw in a matching algorithm based on their bio and have a networking/dating app.

I would agree and think this is probably right the majority of the time. The one exception is in a broad market decline a company with a lot of cash on hand might be able to acquire companies within its circle of competence that allow for more growth than simply cannibalizing itself would. There's a Buffett quote I've always enjoyed that goes something along the lines of "when BRK has a lot of cash it starts to burn a hole in my pockets, Charlie tells me to go to the bar instead". Investing in growth, either organically or through acquisitions is incredibly tempting for CEOs because not only does it offer increased earnings but it's something the CEO can point to and say "I did that", their legacy at the company if you will. Finding a CEO who either has the patience to wait for the really good opportunities when they come around or the confidence to sit back and admit that returning money to shareholders is the best bet isn't easy yet it is a hallmark of many of the greatest CEOs.

Even including Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear fission is by far the safest power source we have in terms of deaths per energy generated. Most of the issues surrounding it have been solved in the latest generation reactors and with modern storage systems. The rhetoric the anti-nuclear crowd has been using for the last half century is almost completely baseless when you're looking at modern reactors constructed today. The problem is, it's expensive and there's no reason to think fusion will be any less expensive. Substituting a fusion reactor for a fission reactor still requires most of the same containment and cooling systems and the turbines for actual power generation. Furthermore, the incremental costs of adding a new fission or fusion reactor make it extremely unlikely to be adopted in developing energy markets where it is most needed to replace "dirty" coal generation. Only wealthy nations like the US and parts of Europe have a realistic chance of implementing initial fusion reactors for power generation, spending 5-10 billion on a single power plant isn't realistic when distributed generation sources like wind, solar and natural gas are all far cheaper to build and operate. Even if fusion makes it technically, it's still DOA commercially, utility scale renewables are already cheaper than nuclear fission (which is probably the closest comparison to assessing the likely costs of fusion although fusion will probably be more expensive to start with). Furthermore, renewables are only getting cheaper. It's easy to dream about the possibilities of cheap, limitless power fusion will provide and get caught up in the story but I think those possibilities are already here with renewable technology. Believe me, I would love to see fusion succeed commercially, I just don't see how it will. That said, there are certainly good reasons to continue fusion research beyond its use in commercial scale power generation. Ultimately it's going to be a lot easier to add capacity to the grid a couple million at a time through wind and solar than it is to plop down a couple billion on a new fusion plant. Here's a decent article on energy source mortality/trillionkWhr http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

I have to wonder this as well. Don't get me wrong the fact that we will probably have productive fusion reactors some time in the next couple decades is awesome and there will of course be niche applications for it like Naval vessels, spacecraft, etc. However, at the commercial scale I don't think fusion solves any problem that fission power plants don't already. Despite what most people think about nuclear power, it is by far the safest form of power generation and incredibly good at providing a lot of energy to the grid. A fusion power plant isn't going to be some kind of panacea, at least not anymore than nuclear already is. Sure you reduce the radioactive waste component down some and the storage for it can be counted in decades as opposed to centuries but otherwise a commercial scale fusion plant isn't going to be all that different than our existing fission plants. You still need most of the cooling and containment systems that take up the majority of the space at a fission plant. While nuclear reactions might provide incredible energy density, most customers are far more concerned with cost/KwH and by that metric the levelized cost of utility scale wind power is already cheaper than nuclear in many locations and only getting cheaper as more comes on line. Furthermore, renewables scale a lot easier and unlike existing nuclear plants and likely fusion plants, they can be mass produced to further drive down cost. So yes, it's probably worth studying fusion for the possible niche applications. However, I don't expect it to become a cost effective power source any time soon. The physics involved in containing and harnessing a fusion reaction make scaling it down for distributed applications quite difficult, although fusion powered planes would be really cool.

It costs a lot of money to bring water from the northern reaches of the state down to Southern California. Southern California cities could rely less on the State Water Project if they could take more water from the Colorado River. It was probably easier as demand increased to incrementally bring water South by tying into the existing system than taking more from the Colorado River. I'd like to see a study done on how much more the Colorado River could provide and what it would cost to get it there. The Southerly flow of water was certainly never designed to handle the load that's placed on it now, cutting back usage is only a temporary fix, demand is increasing and I don't see that stopping any time soon so more water has to come from somewhere whether it's the Colorado River, desalinization plants, more reservoirs or something else.

Complaining about water usage by alfalfa farmers in California is somewhat misleading since most alfalfa is grown in the Imperial valley which has a different water source that are can't really be used elsewhere in the state due to the cost of transporting water. While alfalfa uses a high percentage of California's water, its not part of the same pie so to speak. Almonds are tricky since trees can last decades and take many years to bear fruit, you can't really stop farming them although farmers could make switches to more efficient methods.

If you're interested in some of the challenges Germany is facing with renewables, particularly rooftop solar, this is one of the better analyses I've read on it. It's important to point out though that Germany is not the Southwestern US in terms of solar resources, or even much of the rest of the US. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/04/should-other-nations-follow-germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power/

I thought it was the opposite. Solar reduces the need for costly peak-load generators. (assuming the solar power is consumed on-site rather than sold back to the utility under net metering). Reasoning: Solar generates power during the time when all the air conditioners are turned on. This reduces the need for additional power plants that are utilized only during those times (peak demand load times). Therefore the net metering arrangment shouldn't be replaced with "wholesale pricing", but rather something far above that price to account for the fact that peak-load electricity costs more (due to these extra power plants that are idled the rest of the day and night, and only utilized during peak load). Bottom line is solar provides that peak-load electricity. Which is one reason why one can't just compare the cost of solar to the cost of coal/gas, apples-to-oranges. It needs to be compared to the cost of a peak load power plant. Solar usually doesn't correspond that well with peak load. Load ramps up dramatically starting around 5pm and peaking around 8pm in most areas. In general rooftop solar is optimized to take advantage of sunlight throughout the day rather than specifically pointed westward to offset evening usage, when load is highest. What solar IS excellent at is offsetting AC units during the day and it matches this function almost perfectly since areas where AC use is high usually have better solar resources available. Utility scale solar will most likely replace base-load (coal) generation leaving peak load to nat-gas plants or hydro. Concentrated solar power does have the ability to offset peak load demand since it has the ability to retain heat in the fluid it uses. These plants are definitely not something you'd be putting on your roof though!

What's this nonsense about economies of scale existing in the renewable energy space. The author barely mentions what I think is one of the biggest factors leading to the installation of rooftop solar, perception. Yes, it makes some sense economically for most people and state and federal incentives certainly help, but there's also the fact that you get to say to your friends you've gone "green" and are doing your part for the environment. I've also seen studies that show rooftop solar adds value to a home's resale price far beyond the value of the electrical savings it provides for. There is also the perception of self-sufficiency which I think appeals to a lot of people although sans a robust energy storage system like Tesla's powerwall (probably several in reality), this is mostly wishful thinking. Ultimately, utility company's need to get better at explaining to their customers that yes, they can produce energy at utility scale cheaper than they can generate it themselves, trying to legislate a shift isn't going to happen. Bridging the gap between utility scale solar and rooftop solar is something called community solar. It offers resident's the opportunity to participate in or subscribe to a local solar farm while achieving some of the economies of scale seen at larger solar plants. http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2015/01/30/what-is-community-solar-its-coming-to-california/

Hopefully you're buckled in for that ride! Its a testament to the whole "space" community that they spend millions if not billions on safety features like this, many of which may never even need to be used in order to protect the lives of their crew. Pretty sure SpaceX didn't spend that much on this particular feature. They just have a modern design that was built for safety from the ground up. Trying to retrofit that stuff on older designs would probably be very expensive, but the Dragon capsule has the ability to land under its own power, so they're just using that to double as a safety mechanism. Everybody assume that everything cool must be expensive, but developing the first iPhone is reported to only have cost 150m :) As for the ride, yes, you must feel like quite the pancake for a bit. But I suppose that's better than being dead. I was reading on g force earlier today, and rocket sled pilots have been exposed briefly to up to 45+ g forces... Crazy! What astronauts would go through here probably isn't too different from what some fighter jet pilots go through. Sounds like fun actually. I could see buying tickets for a ride where you get strapped into the Dragon, experience some massive acceleration, then parachute back down. No going into space at all, but the ultimate amusement park ride. I'd go out of my way to do it even if it was costly. Maybe they could use a stripped down version of the capsule with large windows built in, since it isn't going into space. I was thinking it would be a great amusement park ride when I first saw the video as well, where do I sign up. On the subject of risk acceptance you only need to look at the history of early aviation and to a lesser extent the early space program in the 50s and 60s. In both there was a sense of urgency, aviation for the prestige and the space program as part of the space race. Today's private ventures ultimately have little of that urgency. NASA, SpaceX and Elon Musk are all taking a long view toward future exploration, letting testing, training and technology catch up to the missions goal of ultimately going to Mars and returning. While a less risk adverse society would be quick to write off the astronauts and push forward with the program (the Apollo 1 disaster for instance) today it's hard to attract funding or new capital after a major disaster occurs and perhaps more importantly it dampens the enthusiasm society has for space exploration. Far too often people ask why spend money on space exploration when ____ is happening on Earth, if space exploration is also perceived as extraordinarily dangerous that fuels the argument. Space will be tamed slowly but surely and it's likely that within the next century a space journey will be thought of like going on a cruise or flying today.

Hopefully you're buckled in for that ride! Its a testament to the whole "space" community that they spend millions if not billions on safety features like this, many of which may never even need to be used in order to protect the lives of their crew.

For a look at our history as a species I'd recommend Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. http://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/0062316095 I've also always enjoyed Winston Churchill's writings on history, particularly A History of the English Speaking Peoples http://www.amazon.com/History-English-Speaking-Peoples-Bloomsbury-Revelations/dp/1474216315

I watched Damodaran's course series on YouTube a couple months back and thought it was very good. I think due to his target audience he is forced to blend traditional value investing with modern portfolio theory which may result in some questions from someone mostly interested in value investing. That said, the company case studies he does are excellent and it's all free which you can't beat.

It almost seems like if you're a run of the mill analyst for oil or some other commodity there is a lot of incentive to toss out an estimate that is vastly different from the "consensus". Heck you might be wrong 9/10 but if you're right once you're that guy who called the oil collapse correctly. It's funny how little deviation there was in analyst predictions in that first graph they show.

Using the purchase history for BAC provided there and doing a rough weighted average to determine his cost basis for BAC it looks to be around $13. For as bullish as he's been on it I would have expected him to hold on a little longer.

The other problem with almonds is they don't start to produce nuts for 6 years or so. Any money invested in an almond farm is stagnant until your first crops are harvested. However, once they do start producing they can keep producing for several decades which is part of the reason California's almond farmers are so protective of them, they have to take the long view in protecting their assets. Growing alfalfa in a desert though, crazy.

I think that quiz was intended for a UK English speaking audience. #2 was driving me crazy because sprains and asprins made sense and fit but alas they used a word in a way I've never heard it used. Fun quiz and thank you for sharing. If you're curious the answers are here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028596/Are-smart-join-Mensa-interactive-quiz-join-cleverest-brains-world.html

Thanks for sharing. I was always under the impression BRK was a poor investment when he bought it. I seem to remember Buffett mentioning somewhere how little he was able to get for the textile equipment compared to what it was on the books at and it's a lesson I've tried to keep in mind when looking at "cheap" companies. From your description though it seems it wasn't too bad of an investment and he certainly could have made money off it before he took BRK over. Funny how he tried to pawn it off on Munger and Gottesman, what are friends for right?

INTP, guess I'm the odd one out in this crowd.

I remember reading this a while back and it breaks down the average revenue per app and sorts based on ecosystem. Keep in mind the article is over a year old so there have been changes since. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/10/how-much-do-average-apps-make/ Obviously averages do little good in this case because a single app that takes off and makes millions drags the average revenue up but it's a starting point.

Frugalchief has made some excellent points, thought I'd add a little from my own experience working in real estate. -Beware the temptation of leverage. A lot of real estate deals look great when you are purchasing the property with leverage, and since it's so easy to get and use why not. Easy access to financing is like picking up girls at the bar after a few too many, they all look good. Does the deal make sense if you're not using leverage, if yes then it's probably a pretty good deal. -Real estate transactions are like a fresh kill on the African Savanna. If you're the lion and you went out and found the deal, rest assured there's a mixed lot of industry professionals scavenging for their share too. You can go out and buy a couple million dollars worth of stock for a couple bucks through just about any of the major brokerages, if you spend that much in real estate you're going to be paying in the tens of thousands to the realtors, lawyers, home inspectors and other professionals involved. Assemble your "team" first, let them know you want to invest in real estate and that you'll stick with them and provide more business if they keep their costs reasonable. Have your team lined up before you commit to a purchase, they should be able to help you find a good deal. -Be willing to get your hands dirty. If you're paying out of pocket for repairs and to have someone else do them that quickly eats into your profits, especially if you only have a couple units. As you scale up its easier and more necessary to have someone else do the little stuff. Take a value investing mind set to real estate and try to keep the costs under control and you'll be fine. Many people jump into real estate because its easy to do and everyone else is doing it without taking a hard and pessimistic look at the deal they're getting. If you still think it's a good deal when you project in vacancy and below market rents and thieves stealing everything from the place, including the kitchen sink >:( then you might be on to something. Buy with a margin of safety and build a margin of safety by finding good tenants that add value to your investment.

The problem here as I see it is "organic" has a rather specific definition which "organic" farmers try to follow to the letter. However, in popular usage "organic" has a broad connotation that doesn't line up with the actual practices "organic" farmers use. Farmers probably do a good job following organic standards but those standards would shock the average organic consumer. I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone considering how susceptible most people are to marketing and the appeal of choosing organic because it is good for the environment, planet, consumer, etc... Also, Hepatitis B vaccines engineered into bananas... that's frickin cool!!

Thanks for sharing. I'm reading through their take on Imperial Metals now, it's very well put together IMO. I found their reaction to the Mount Polley Mine tailing's pond incident interesting and indicative of how they they make decisions. Fairholme preaches "ignore the crowd" and they certainly did just that in this case, conducting their own environmental assessment within days of the incident and making investment decisions based on it rather than the negative press at the time. http://www.fairholmeonimperial.com/mount-polley-mine