Jurgis

You guys realize that the article claims that what you propose is what value funds are doing and that's what underperforms? While no funds do the value-metrics approach and that's what presumably outperforms? Or nobody read the article?

The issue with the rapid technical advance with electric cars is rapid loss in value and that means high cost of ownership. This hasn’t been considered much, but given the number of customers screwed by Tesla’s price cuts, I think it will be in the mind of potential customers. Leading might be a better option, if the offers are good. That's much more of a problem for ICE cars (or really any mechanically complex machine.) The more "electric" the car is, the more it's essentially a software update issue that doesn't require a new car purchase. I expect electric cars to have a MUCH longer ownership timeline than ICE vehicles historically have had. It’s not just software that changes, it’s the battery, engine, sensor etc that’s evolving faster for electric cars than for ICE‘s, hence I expect a faster loss in value. The buyers of Tesla cars seeing their used car values plummet already. It won’t happen with the Subaru I own. It's literally the opposite. Websites track this. The Model S depreciates far less quickly than sedans in the same class (and as an owner of the Mercedes E350 who is looking to buy a Model S, this is very real.) The Model 3 recently won a "best in class" depreciation award. https://www.autolist.com/news-and-analysis/tesla-model-x-model-s-depreciation Maybe this was true mid last year. It's not true anymore. I looked at used Model S prices on Tesla.com Last year there were zero Model S'es below $65K. Now there's tons at $40K. Maybe they were stable. But now they definitely collapsed. They may stay stabilize at new $40K value assuming Model 3 prices don't drop even more.

I disagree that green (and not only green - people in general too) are against nuclear because they don't understand it. Mostly they are against it because of possible radiation leaks/accidents. Chernobyl and Fukushima did not help. And, yeah, maybe you can argue that modern systems make the risk of accident negligible. But the counterargument to that would be that Japanese claimed Fukushima was safe. So people don't trust safety claims of nuclear industry. And unlike other industries people don't trust, nuclear does not have strong enough lobbyists and backroom dealers who would push through deals even without public support. And BTW the huge cost overruns of recent/attempted projects did not help. BTW, I am pro-nuclear. But I see pretty much zero chance for nuclear development in US and mostly in EU. China/Asia will probably build nuclear. For other countries, the discussion turns to non-proliferation. (And yeah, again, potential solutions exist, but persuading people that they are good/viable is not going to be easy). Also BTW, based on Wikipedia there is currently no commercial Thorium reactor and most plans are for pilot projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power So the situation is not really that <insert country X> could just buy cheap (prebuilt?) thorium reactor and have it running quickly. It's not even that they could build it quickly and reliably. So assuming <insert country X or state/municipality Y> came to you and asked you for input, you could not really advise them to build thorium-based power plant, since there's no successful precedents.

Even with Tesla present, we are getting mostly that. As much as I'm concerned about Tesla service, I'd be doubly/triply concerned about pretty much any conventional manufacturer electric car service. Since they don't give a crap about their electric models. (It might be different in Europe, I don't know).

https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/this-clever-ai-hid-data-from-its-creators-to-cheat-at-its-appointed-task/ - Fun stuff

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/nyregion/airbnb-nyc-law.html

http://www.bostonomaha.com/documents/165/21c2c6114f08e2fed05e3cbc9bc26e4b.pdf - 2019 annual meeting, June 8, Boston

Once foot goes on to the pedal at price point proposed; no one may return it. If you haven't pressed the pedal, may welcome to join all California streets which are daily flooded with these cars. Completed; 1 year with 24000 miles , drove on road trips on autopilot .Nothing close to this car exists in the market. May want to check out how many second/used available, which indicates proposed returns. There are tons of Model S used available: https://www.tesla.com/inventory/used/ms The prices actually have dropped hugely: last year cheapest Model S used was in 60-70K range, now it's 39K with not that bad mileage. I guess that's understandable: nobody's buying used S when new 3 is available for similar or lower price. Although some S features are better (and you get free supercharging). Tesla does not list used Model 3's yet. Either they don't have used inventory (yet) or they don't want to list them or who knows what.

It's also possible that they've run out of customers and selling lower price model is the only way to sustain sales/demand. That’s likely. For Tesla it’s grow or die...or grow and die. The online sales model is interesting, but it sort of increases the hurdle. I think some people won’t plunk down $40k to basically do a test drive and return the car I’d they don’t like it. It increases the hurdle to try out the car, imo, which is not what you want when you want to grow into new segments. I agree with that. E.g. one concern for me would be center touchscreen. So yeah, I'd like to see if that is workable before buying. Also, you'd think they could have sales at the same location as service center to lower overhead. But maybe not. Maybe they really want to push for minimal service locations and mostly mobile "fix at home" service. I'd be happy with "fix at home" service, but not if I have to waste (multiple?) long trips and days for any issue that's not fixable at home. This is what I want to watch for some time. 8)

I'd think SFIX might have a moat in the intersection of their data, customers, and manufacturers. I.e. using data for matching, but also for both customer and manufacturer suggestions/feedback/planning/pricing/models/etc. In some sense the scale is still a moat. If these AI clothing startups can figure out how to efficiently procure clothes to match their AI suggestions, then perhaps SFIX won't have much lead apart of the first mover advantage. Edit: the real disruptor would be AI suggestions + make-clothes-on-demand--fast-and-cheap. That would kill pretty much whole industry. 8)

It's also possible that they've run out of customers and selling lower price model is the only way to sustain sales/demand.

Autopilot Enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically for other vehicles and pedestrians within its lane. $3,000 $4,000 if added after delivery Full Self-Driving Capability Navigate on Autopilot: automatic driving from highway on-ramp to off-ramp including interchanges and overtaking slower cars. Autopark: both parallel and perpendicular spaces. Summon: your parked car will come find you anywhere in a parking lot. Really. Coming later this year: Recognize and respond to traffic lights and stop signs. Automatic driving on city streets. $5,000 Requires Autopilot $7,000 upgrade if added after delivery ------------------------------------------------- On the positive side, the Standard Range Plus with Partial Premium Interior at $37K pretty much includes everything you need apart from Autopilot. With both autopilot and "self driving" misnomer, the price is $45K <- that would be my selection to buy ------------------------------------------------- I'd buy if I had any certainty about quality, longevity and service quality.

Looking for funding/participation. My friends&family in Lithuania have implemented web based market for business designs (logos, webpages, business cards, etc.) They have launched it in Russian market: https://www.brandelements.ru/ (Google auto translates the page to English pretty well.) It’s two sided market where the designers can sell their designs and/or make custom projects for customers. The designer side is pretty well populated. The customer side is so so. They get minimal revenue. The company is based in Lithuania, which means EU market/rules/etc. They are looking for investor and/or business development person. The top priority would be to find someone who would both invest for worldwide launch and lead worldwide business development. Other options are possible: lead business development in Russia/worldwide for equity slice; acquire the startup as is; etc. They’ve built this on sweat equity taking zero salaries so far. It has no outside investment at this time. This is likely a small size opportunity although there is a chance to grow if platform successfully attracts customers. If there's interest, please PM me. I'm happy to take questions/feedback on CoBF, but any in depth discussions should go into private channels. Thanks.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-to-invest-in-a-true-value-fund-good-luck-finding-one-11549249860?mod=nwsrl_journal_reports_health_care&cx_refModule=nwsrl Disclaimers: I don't invest in true value . This is posted for fun and discussion only. Maybe this explains (not-true)value fund underperformance. Maybe it doesn't. Have fun. 8)

Thank you.

Can this be posted either as attachment or on some other site? Accessing mailchimp is a pain (can't access it repeatedly). Thanks

Probably a better idea to call IB to get it fixed. There will be a discrepancy between what you file and what the IRS will get from IB. Yeah. So IB has "Tax form correction" option in their support section. Except that it does not work. They implemented new interface, but part of the code refers to old form and you can't submit the correction - it requires you to fill in no longer existing checkbox(es). Great programming! This company rocks! NOT. Well, I submitted generic ticket instead. We'll see where that gets us. BTW, they had exactly the same issue with ISTB/FLOT dividends reported as qualified in 2017 tax form. 1099-DIV got fixed/amended in March. This company rocks! NOT. Was this a special dividend? I would have though reporting dividends would be pretty straightforward. No. ISTB and FLOT are bond etfs that pay regular dividends every month. I have no clue why IB cannot get it right second year in a row.

Warren might be interested, but Bloomberg won't get to a point where he has to sell.

Probably a better idea to call IB to get it fixed. There will be a discrepancy between what you file and what the IRS will get from IB. Yeah. So IB has "Tax form correction" option in their support section. Except that it does not work. They implemented new interface, but part of the code refers to old form and you can't submit the correction - it requires you to fill in no longer existing checkbox(es). Great programming! This company rocks! NOT. Well, I submitted generic ticket instead. We'll see where that gets us. BTW, they had exactly the same issue with ISTB/FLOT dividends reported as qualified in 2017 tax form. 1099-DIV got fixed/amended in March. This company rocks! NOT.

IB is reporting dividends from ISTB and FLOT as qualified dividends. Fido is reporting them as not qualified dividends. This also shows they are not qualified dividends: https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/2018-ishares-distribution-summary-icrmh0219u-716296.pdf Crap, so now I have to try to manually persuade Turbo Tax that IB's reporting is screwed up... FML.

Well, I guess the positive is that we now know that the BRK prices are due to market and not Buffett put. 8)

ajc has makings of good John Oliver replacement.

So a person who had great long-term orientation, good business experience, picked and held at least 3 great companies and great stocks that everyone would have loved to pick from their IPOs, still possibly (likely) underperformed SP500. I'm sure there's a lesson in this. But probably not for CoBF crowd. 8)

Mostly questions: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/five-things-spotify-needs-to-fix-in-2019-794853/

Probably exactly why they don’t do it. You’re not much use as a safety backup unless you’re concentrating. Accident rates would rise, caused by humans overestimating the system and not concentrating but inevitably blamed on Waymo, and the brand image of autonomous driving as a whole would suffer. I disagree with this. You are not a safety backup. You are the unexpected situations backup. I.e. if the car cannot read the road in snowstorm, it stops (or otherwise safely hands over) and requires you to drive. If there is a policeperson directing traffic around a herd of cows on the road, the car hands over and requires you to drive. If bad people try to troll your car by surrounding it and not moving, you are there to call the police or press on gas and run them over. Also you can take over anytime you think the self driving car is making subpar (though possibly very safe) decisions. Yes, this requires more than Tesla Autopilot (L2.5?). It requires L4ish. But is solves the issue of selling self driving cars before reaching L5.