You can start with mushrooms that have no poisonous look-alikes, and gradually build confidence in your identification skills.
I do see a lot of troubling Facebook posts asking if a big heap of different mushrooms are edible.
You do have to put in some work to be able to identify a lot of different species. As a bonus though, I've leave a lot about trees and natural systems in general.
Avoid foraging. That will remove a whole class of unnecessary hazard. There is near zero benefits in foraging. Any nutrients can easily be gained from modern processed food and supplements. The cost savings in foraging cannot be justify with death or hospitalization. In fact the time wasted foraging can easily earn hundreds of dollars to but more expensive organic food. If it is for apocalypse scenario, learning to be weapon expert have way higher retur s than be a greatest foragers. Unless it is purely for thrill x factor seekers? Then dying is necessary to induce the excitement of knowing one has probability of dying from foraging.
You live in your world, but others live in their worlds. It _feels_ like you have a strong opinion about something that you don't have much experience from.
Foraging can be a fun and addictive hobby. Many people learn foraging from their parents and can very safely forage for mushrooms/berries/plants that they identify. It is not (just) about optimizing for nutrients, supplements, costs, apocalypses, whatever. People do stuff for other reasons as well; the joy of finding stuff can be addictive, walking in nature is likely good for you, walking overall is definitely good for you, eating food provided by yourself can give a warm and cozy feeling, and so on.
"Time wasted foraging can easily earn hundreds of dollars", dunno what consultant bubble you live in, but that is not the case for most of the world. People can not automatically just go convert time to money, not that many would even want to. Foraging can be a lot more rewarding than grinding away in some meaningless uber-for-whatever-gig-work.
Also, it seems for example going to earn extra money from Uber etc kills more people than mushrooms in the US (... where I am assuming you are from).
I think the fascinating takeaway from Cochrane piece, and this response article, is how much innovation improves a person's performance, even if indirectly. It's a great reminder of how hard it is to measure the effects of technical innovation.
It's also amazing that even before some of these innovations (dynamic rope, cams) how many people were able to climb incredibly tough routes. The technology has opened the sport to people who enjoy the it but aren't so interested in risking their lives on a second-by-second basis.
And as an aside, having climbed the Salathe route featured in the Free Solo movie, I can't even begin to imagine the mindset you would need to consider climbing it without protection.
Not necessarily. Excluding interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is a common financial metric. It can demonstrate a business model is working, before taking in to account capital structure or other semi-external factors.
EBITA is a common way of demonstrating that a company has figured out a viable business model: it tries to show that, given the assets it has acquired and the expenditures it has made and is in the process of paying off, the company makes money.
Amazon was a 20 year old company before it was reliably profitable by accounting metrics. Is their business model viable? That's how a growth company works.
I don't think that's true. Snap's and Twitter's consumer-facing product is free, while Dropbox charges for theirs.
They played the long game here. I'm still not a paying customer after almost ten years (partially because I got a lot of free space via referrals and trying out their apps). But if I ever max it out and decide to start paying someone for space, it'll be them unless there's something out there that does what they do at a price that's low enough to make the effort to switch worthwhile.
And, more notably, the freemium model means that they're able to invade the business world in the same way that the iPhone did with BYOD. And there's a lot more money there.
I'd be stunned if Dropbox wasn't very successful already, and I'm happy that someone outside of the Big 5 is doing what Dropbox is doing. It's a fantastic and indispensable product for me.
Capital structure is _not_ external. You seem sophisticated to know this, but for everyone else, it's all about CASHFLOW. How much the business has coming in the door, how much is going out, etc.
Warren Buffet goes on periodic rants about these accounting gimmicks in Berkshire's annual letters. Metrics like EBITDA pretend things like massive capital investment don't exist. Guess what, if you own datacenters, or railroads, or anything else, you absolutely have to factor the costs of acquisition and holding those assets into your business model, metrics, and financing needs.
Amazon seems to have this figured out. Look at their financial statements, they always put the statement of cashflows first, right at the top, #1. Everything else is secondary. I'm not surprised their founder is worth 12 figures.
He might talk about profits a lot, but Berkshire is very much a cashflow-optimized machine. The entire thesis of the company was a hack, noticing that insurance collects cash upfront (premium payments) in trade for future liabilities, giving smart insurers a huge amount of cheap, investable cash.
Within Berkshire, they have operating businesses (Marmon, Fruit of the Loom, Dairy Queen) that throw off operating profits, which then get plowed into high-return but illiquid assets like BNSF (the railroad) which are great long-term investments, but require deploying mountainous, almost government-sized piles of cash.
This isn't my own thinking either; it's a bit of an infection of American businesses that we're so margin-obsessed. This is the thinking that got IBM out of PC manufacturing. "You can't take a profit margin to the bank", as they say. And given the current rate climate, we're anything but capital constrained.
True. Also, people tend to take more time when in losing positions, so it is likely that more of the discarded games than the not-discarded games would have been lost.
It would be very interesting to see a computer analysis of position strength in the discarded games and seeing, where possible, if the ratios of "likely win" and "likely loss" match the games that were finished.
It makes perfect economic economic sense. Craft beer is growing[1], and beer companies want to keep that piece of the pie. They're producing their own craft beer, buying smaller brewers, and disparaging the competition.
"Craft" isn't a kind of beer, so there isn't 11% of the market to go after. About the closest you'd come to that is super-hoppy IPAs. If the narrative I'm supposed to be worried about is that AB InBev blankets the market with a good super-hoppy IPA, I guess I'm fine with that.
- get a regional guidebook
- attend a mycology society foray
You can start with mushrooms that have no poisonous look-alikes, and gradually build confidence in your identification skills.
I do see a lot of troubling Facebook posts asking if a big heap of different mushrooms are edible.
You do have to put in some work to be able to identify a lot of different species. As a bonus though, I've leave a lot about trees and natural systems in general.