Depends if you are talking about private small landlords or corporate institutional (ie, Related). The former has totally different motivations and needs. I haven't received rent reductions but I have fought off rent increases in strong markets.
You really don't know what you're talking about. LNKD was not in S&P 500, "only" 8% off consensus earnings is not a small number, P/E multiples are nowhere what they were in 2000, there's been relatively little IPO activity. It's a different world. It may be a tough market but there's no basis for (most of) the numbers you are throwing around.
I could definitely see a decline in engineer salary, which could be significant in certain markets. But who knows.
I know a thing about tech, lawyers, and banking. You're talking about misconceptions about tech while feeding misconceptions about law and banking.
In reality, most people in all three industries don't make $200K salaries. A big chunk (but by no means all) of Bay-area FANG engineers, New York bankers and Biglaw lawyers get this type of remuneration. Should be said too that most (not all) of these are pulling off insane, crazy-making hours as well.
If you think lawyers are rolling in it you have not been paying attention to what's happened to the profession over the past decade. Simply anachronistic. If you're going to generalize, it's a much better time to be an engineer than a lawyer in 2016.
All three of these professions have massive disparities in remuneration.
For all this talk about how engineers "might" get laid off, this completely ignores the massive contraction of the legal market that has already happened.
Outside of a few specific areas of law, and a few high powered law firms, lawyers don't make that much money.
My ex, a nationally renowned family lawyer in literally the richest area of the country doesn't make more money than i do (and she runs her own firm, so it's not like she is being kept down by partners).
Yeah the comment about lawyers and bankers making more than engineers is straight out of 1995. Outside of highly specialized degrees in medicine there really isn't any other jobs out there paying a white collar wage ($100K +).
By investing in the entire market continuously, and squeezing every spare penny to invest even more when there's blood on the streets.
You don't have to time anything right or pick any winners with this strategy, because you'll invest all the way down and all the way back up. You might not have made money from Jan 1 2008 through Dec 31 2008, but that money would have made a killing subsequently.
Of course if you were out of work in 2008 that is easier said than done.
OTOH If you try to make a killing by shorting, there's an infinite number of ways to end up broke by getting the timing wrong. If you bet everything on picking bottom, you can miss the boat or miss the bottom. Not nearly as risky as shorting, but certainly not as reliable as staying the course.
No way this is licensed (no copyright notice, even; not even a mention of Fox), and no way it is fair use. It has frame-by-frame, full resolution images and full transcripts of every episode up for browsing. This is textbook mass copyright infringement. Short of offering unlicensed video downloads for a fee, it could hardly be more clear-cut.
Yeah, it's cool, I get it, but you can't just steal and redistribute content en masse for your cool project. Well, he did, but I expect he'll be hearing from Fox's lawyers soon.
It is arguably fair use in the U.S. I don't think there is enough case law to be sure. It's hard to predict how it would go in litigation. I think you're right that the defendants wouldn't have a particularly strong case, but they wouldn't have the weakest.
The courts have generally judged significant "transformation" of the source material to be powerful in determining fair use. I think that would be in their benefit. Also it could be argued that this has very little effect on the market for the original copyrighted material, which would be in their favor. Of course, the copyright holder would see and argue it differently if they choose to sue. And the "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken" would not look good for the defendants -- but even though some common belief focuses on this factor almost exclusively -- thinking as long as you copy only 10 pages or whatever you're good, and if you don't you're definitely not -- that's not how it works, it's just one factor, and one that the courts in the past couple decades have somewhat de-emphasized.
But I don't think we can say "no way it is fair use", or "it could hardly be more clear cut." It could go either way. Fair use in the U.S. for novel things, not already well established as fair use or not, almost always looks like this.
Counterpoint: copying every single page of every book and making it searchable can be fair use. It just takes only 10 years of litigation and appeals to determine that. See Authors Guild v. Google.
https://www.eff.org/document/ruling-appeals-court
Point is, the law is hardly clear cut and never is with new technologies. Without someone willing to take a risk and develop a potentially infringing technology we would never have had VCRs, MP3 players, YouTube.... I applaud the creators for making an incredibly useful resource and I hope if they do face legal threats they get a zealous pro-bono defense from someone like the EFF or Larry Lessig.
Won't be using this suckless format. Pretty useless. The real image formats took effort and are mature. This is just a more compact, less useful hacked out version of netpbm etc. Being easy to parse is no particular virtue. Use libraries with good APIs.
I've always thought of suckless.org tools as more of an educational tool than anything. Certainly some people use them in their day to day lives but for me it's always been like "What's the simplest way to do X?" It gets you thinking about the complexity of modern software and hopefully makes you question your assumptions. But yeah, pretty useless.
"The real image formats took effort and are mature. This is just a more compact, less useful hacked out version of netpbm etc."
That seems less like "criticism" and more like "a summary of the blog post". (Sorry, I have to admit I'm developing a pet peeve around people echoing back things the original author already said but acting like it's a new criticism.)
Aviation and marine fuel demand is only a small fraction of global demand.
Think about it; for most of history shipping was entirely wind-powered. Clearly not comparable to today's massive freighters, but don't rule out new technologies finding a way to harness more wind and sun at sea.
And at the end of the day if there's a surplus of renewable electricity, it can be converted into high density fuels such as gas or diesel. That technology exists today; it can only get better especially if a cost incentive existed.
He's not selling the shares. He said they "will give 99% of our Facebook shares." If he sold appreciated stock and donated the proceeds, he'd still have to pay tax on the capital gains, and could only deduct the amount of the actual donation, which would be smaller after tax.
By donating stock directly, he still gets to deduct the full value of the stock without paying any tax, and the charity (or more likely, private foundation) gets to keep the full value without paying any tax. And it could take as long as it wanted to liquidate the stock and get the best price.
> the charity (or more likely, private foundation) gets to keep the full value without paying any tax. And it could take as long as it wanted to liquidate the stock and get the best price.
Yes, and the foundation will likely not liquidate the stock, but use the proceeds of some kind of swap contract.
The Initiative is an LLC and not a public charity or private foundation, so as not to limit the activities they can take part in. This will all be taxed at some point (though the Initiative may further grant shares to public charities).
Yeah, I missed this the first time around. But you are not quite correct. An LLC is a pass-through entity. No doubt it will be treated as a disregarded entity for federal tax purposes. So, gifting shares to an LLC is not a taxable event. If the LLC sells shares for a non-charitable purpose (e.g. lobbying, or funding commercial ventures), then sure, that will be taxable. But if it in turn donates shares to either a private foundation or another charity, in that case, it will not be taxable, and will in fact be deductible for the Zucks.
Basically, if the Zucks own the LLC, then until funds actually leave the LLC they really haven't made a donation at all.
Google is up with Apple and Coca Cola as most valuable brands, but Facebook is not even top 10.