I did this today on a 2010 MBP with a 250gb optibay drive. Nuked everything, ran the terminal commands from the Mountain Lion on usb stick, then installed mountain Lion. Installed and works great. Fast.
"Zubovsky and Toda insist that Scoutzie is more like a traditional design agency like FJORD or Happy Cog than its most obvious competitor 99Designs, and hold that the curation of the community and emphasis on quality versus getting the cheapest possible option is what sets them apart from the aforementioned."
I don't understand how they can compare Scoutzie to an agency. Do they not realize that agencies deliver significantly more than just design? An agency delivers a package through a proven process. Scoutzie just gives you a relationship to a designer. They are not even remotely the same.
Indeed! In your dealings with an agency, you might only have one designer working on your project. But (unless the agency is pretty bad) they should be getting input on their work from other designers (especially more senior designers in the firm). And if you really dislike their work, the possibility should exist that the agency will draft a different designer in.
Connecting users to a single freelancer isn't like being an agency. It is valuable, for sure - but agencies offer value in a different way.
If new startups agreed that they wouldn't leave their users out to dry if they got acquired would you be more likely to trust them and use their service?
Getting a future promise from a startup CEO is as trustworthy as a politician's promise during election season.
The only sane approach is open data. Leave everything available for export so some other feature company can pick up where you left off.
You could venture into an insane realm where startups enter into a Startup Insurance™ league. When a company gets acquihired, instead of shutting down the product, a separate foundation runs the product (or figures out a way to open all the data for export).
Keeping the product alive could be one of the terms of the acquisition, but it seems unlikely - it could lower the offer, and it's unlikely startup founders would throw away money on a matter of principle unless the community promise was somehow legally binding.
In a sense the promise is a "non-credible threat" in game-theoretic terms. It would attract users if they carried it out, but because acquisition happens after the user-attraction stage they don't have an incentive to carry it out. This means they won't rationally carry it out, which means they don't attract rational users. This situation can be avoided if they "tie their own hands".
If startups want to be acquired, they'd never make such a policy anyway, because that makes them less attractive to the acquirer (who, after all, may only acquire them to prevent competition).
true. but that's only for long term. i have no idea what short term tax is, but i know it's also less than 30%.
i was trying to overestimate taxes (so that the reported annual income, if anything, would be less than actual annual income) and use a nice round number so i didn't have to use a calculator.
true, but what's the interest rate for short term cap gains?
i know it's (15,30), but i can't rememeber if it's just 18% or something more like 25%. and since i am efficient (read: lazy :), i just overestimated to 30% instead of wikipedia-ing.
If you want to live like a 20-something for the rest of your life, sure. Your cost structure changes as you get older and have things like houses, spouses, cars, and children.
Do you have a house or kids? I do. The near-certainty that I could afford college, house payments, and a humane retirement would be an intense motivator for me. I'm not conservative by any means --- I work for a company I cofounded --- but I think it's easy to forget that adults like us live with a pretty fucking high cortisol load.
$6MM invested with a 6% return provides a $360k pa lifestyle just living off the interest. That seems like quite enough for houses, spouses (well—maybe spouse; alimony could eat into that quite a bit), cars, and children.
Zero risk return is way below 6% right now. I'm not sure where you're going to find anything like that.
Berkshire Hathaway is willing to guarantee you a $205,000 annual income from that sum in an annuity, which is not a bad deal at all, but it's not 'never worry about money again', it's just a really nice salary, and would be substantially depleted in the case of any inflation at all.
No need to go zero risk when the investment starts in your 20s. But of course, yes, inflation. But of course, you can draw from principal as well—that's how retirement funds usually work.
I'll put it another way: Maybe it's not 'never worry about money again'—people are prone to worrying, after all—but $6MM is more than the lifetime earnings of the vast majority of Americans.
If you can't make it on more than what nearly everyone else will ever see in their entire lives, that's your problem.
A mixed portfolio can provide both a solid annual income and a hedge against inflation. $6M well-invested in your 20s means you don't have to worry about money again.
Right now 10-year T-Bills are pulling about 1.65, and inflation is having a nice bounce between 1.7 and 3. Let's even it out at 2 - either way, yes, you're losing money on ultra-low-risk investments. All you can hope for is to reduce the wages of inflation on your balance sheet.
BH annuity is not a bad deal, but losing 2% of your income a year will sound tolerable until about year 5... =)
If you retire mid-twenties on $5M, there's no way you'd make it through 70 on that, if you did nothing else active (read: risky) to increase your income.
Let's assume your investments keep up with inflation but no more, which is very easy to do. Then essentially you are just living off of your principle. 5MM goes a long ways. 75k a year (in today's dollars) will last you 67 years. That's more than most people make. I'd take that.
Follow the thread UP, and you'll see it's the core of the conversation - as to whether one can live off of 6MM for the rest of your life. I call "ceasing working and living on the money you made previously" retirement, you can call it what you like.
It's a real return of ~2%, it's a nominal return of 6%. "Nominal" in this case means "in name only" - it's the face-value of the return, not the actual value.
Nope, you can do it with $500k in a Colorado suburb for example. This guy is a living example of it, with multiple kids, multiple cars, a house, furniture, etc:
Bullshit. I live on roughly $18k a year net. buy a house, maybe doubles or PERHAPS triples my housing allowance. Have a wife and kids and things, in total, probably triple.
I don't think people understand how to not waste money any more.
I'd rather spend my time writing software then repairing my old socks. As a bonus, writing software makes me about 100x what repairing my old socks nets me per hour.
Where do you live? This is HUGELY dependent on geography. $18k a month in NYC, Seattle, SF, etc., is pretty painful. Add two kids, private school (unless you live in a great district), college educations, saving for retirement, summer camp, braces, health care for 4, housing for 4 in a good neighborhood, helping out your retired parents who might not have saved enough, etc., it stacks up pretty fast.
$18k/yr in NYC or SFBA with a mortgage and a family is untenable.
$18k/yr in most major US cities probably implies:
* Subsistence diet
* Dependence on small selection of rental properties
* Extremely poor access to health care
* Dependence on informal "gratis" child care
* Near perfect job attendance
I call these out not to make the boring "gnash our teeth about the lives of the poor" case, but rather the suggest that your ability to care for a family on 18k/yr in a US metro is counterfeit: you can do it until you:
* Are ever hospitalized
* Lose your free child care
* &c ...
... at which point bang you're bankrupt. I think a lot of people who think they are getting by with low incomes are actually playing a kind of sick inverted Martingale betting strategy against life.
Well my point is not that everyone should be able to live off $18k a year. My point is that You don't need $500k a year to live decently. I have a new car, a good apartment and amenities such as cable TV and xbox live. Certainly geography plays a large role in individual costs. But again, I'm not trying to say everyone should live on $18k a year. I'm saying I (a single fellow btw) do, and it's a satisfactory lifestyle complete with all the necessities and a few luxuries.
A modest house in the valley costs something like $500k. With a typical mortgage you can expect to pay about 1% of the total price ($5k). That's more than triple your total expenditures, let alone housing costs.
If you have high expectations about the amount and 'quality' of your personal possessions, then sure. I'm sure most every one else can make due on that amount.
I think with wise spending and decent investments I could easily make that amount last my entire life and have quite a bit to give away at the end.
I think it is a given that you shouldn't use boostrap in it's entirety for a startup. However, using bootstrap for parts of the library is very effective. I'm using the excellent 'Bootstrap-sass-rails' gem, which lets you include all or just parts of bootstrap easily in the Rails asset pipeline. I then get the mixins, forms, type treatments, dropdowns, css reset and more for my project. Without the generic graphical styles.
