Floodwaters tend to stir up a lot of dirt and mud, so the water is usually totally opaque. That makes it very hard to tell how deep it is. A lot of overhead views of flooded neighborhoods look completely disastrous, but in reality it's just a foot or two of water that will just go away once the drains can handle it.
But, sometimes, flooding really is severe and the damage is monumental. But it can be hard to distinguish those from imagery. Every picture of a flood looks biblical.
Certainly one function of financial markets and prices is to convey information, but that's not "solely" their purpose. They also provide a mechanism for resource allocation, risk management, wealth generation and collective action, among other things.
Your point about centrally planned economies, while historically corroborated in cases like the Soviet Union, might be an overgeneralization. The effectiveness of an economic system depends on numerous factors, including its degree of flexibility, the effectiveness of its institutions, and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Not all centrally planned economies are doomed to failure; some have been quite successful, notably in East Asia where countries like China and Vietnam have managed a mixed economy with elements of central planning and market mechanisms.
Many capitalist corporations are centrally planned economies larger than many nation states. While everything fails eventually, these centrally planned organizations can last multiple human generations, and can be more durable than many markets and market-oriented economies.
The assertion about the feudal Middle Ages also needs some nuance. The Middle Ages, and the feudal system in particular, had complexities beyond simple information and incentive problems. Numerous sociopolitical factors were at play, including a rigid class structure, the influence of the Church, and the lack of certain technological innovations. Ascribing the issues of a historical period mainly to its economic structure oversimplifies the multitude of factors that influenced societal development.
Moreover, while financial markets do help in transmitting information from consumers to producers, they are not infallible. They can, and often do, suffer from issues like information asymmetry, where one party in a transaction has more or better information than the other. This can lead to problems like adverse selection and moral hazard. Financial markets can also be subject to speculation, which can distort the "signal" provided by prices.
The focus on profit as the sole incentive in the market might be somewhat limited. People's decisions to buy, sell, and produce are influenced by a host of factors beyond profit, including societal and environmental concerns, personal values, and ethical considerations. Financial systems, to be truly effective, need to take into account this wide range of motivations.
It's always harmful to your reputation to shut down a service, but it is especially harmful when it is an ecosystem or platform play where you are burning the good will of third parties who co-invest to create the platform. Clearly stadia is in that second category. While Google can refund consumers for their purchases they can never make up for the opportunity cost those parties suffered.
At this point, I can't see how Google can ever launch another platform or ecosystem except on a 100% transactional basis.
To add to the list of unfiltered OSINT straight from Ukraine/Russia, Telegram channels/groups are invaluable (but treat everything as unconfirmed rumors until confirmed elsewhere):
Beware, some of these are literally Russian propaganda, so again, don't take anything being said/shared as truth until verified elsewhere.
In case you need a translation service for the channels, I wrote a Telegram bot that translates anything you send to it/forward to it to English (via DeepL, so higher quality translations than Google Translate), accessible here:
TL;DR: "Most people don't have problems with procrastination" <CITATION NEEDED>
I’ve read the article. I would caution against labeling yourself as having ADHD, IMO it is very dangerous. Every high-achieving person I know has major problem with procrastination. I was nodding while reading the article until the ADHD part. Does it mean we all have ADHD? Consider an alternative: our brains have to operate nonstop at near max capacity just to handle complexities of modern society with computers and Internet. They rebel and as a result we slap them with “defective, ADHD” labels. By analogy, if you would feed somebody ungodly amounts of cake day in, day out, it is no wonder if they develop diabetes. The problem is not that you are inherently defective; the problem is you (or rather – modern society) brought you to the brink and now you wonder why you are breaking down. Perhaps try to unplug for some months in the woods and see if the symptoms persist? If they do, I stand corrected.
Talk to esofund and friends ahead of time, and see what their offers for your company's stock are, and make sure they're acceptable to you if you think you'll have to go that route.
Don't count on definitely being able to sell the stock to finance the taxes. I left after seven years in very good standing (I believed) but when I went to sell the deal was shut down [1]. Luckily I had a backup plan and I was ok [2].
[1] Had a handshake deal with an investor in the company, then the investor went silent on me. When I followed up he said the deal was "just much too small." I reached out to the company for help, and they said they'd actually told him not to buy from me. I never would have known if they hadn't decided to tell me for some reason. The takeaway is that the markets for private company stock tend to be small, and the buyers care more about their relationships with the company than they do about having your shares. Even if the stock terms allow them to buy, and they might not.
[2] However I was trying to sell for roughly double the current (public market) price. The private/public valuation gap is real! Don't put too much stock (haha) in the value at the last tender offer. If you can sell privately at close to that price it's possibly smart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4
Floodwaters tend to stir up a lot of dirt and mud, so the water is usually totally opaque. That makes it very hard to tell how deep it is. A lot of overhead views of flooded neighborhoods look completely disastrous, but in reality it's just a foot or two of water that will just go away once the drains can handle it.
But, sometimes, flooding really is severe and the damage is monumental. But it can be hard to distinguish those from imagery. Every picture of a flood looks biblical.