Growing up around people who lost everything, job and savings, working at Enron, you should take all the money they’ll let you. You are structurally long your company already, because if they struggle you could lose your job. Diversify your wealth away from that concentrated position as much as possible if you’re offered a fair price.
I disagree. The answer for me is always half. And then next time, half again. Always take some out and leave some in, and an easy way to hedge your bets is to make both amounts half.
You are welcome to your own perspective. I just want to point out to others that having even half of what was presumably a large fraction of your net worth in any single company is not considered well diversified, especially when you rely on that same company for your paycheck.
Yes, same principle. And with RSUs you can be even more confident that you’re selling at market rate than you can with a tender offer for illiquid equity.
> The interesting discussion is how much you should take off the table if the offer is uncapped.
50% for security, let the remaining 50% run. We can spend countless hours modeling the risk and return delta of various percentages and against non correlated asset classes you might diversify into once liquid, but most of life is luck; you can do everything right and still lose. This makes it easy, imho.
Another voice in favor of "money today good" (though not from personal experience).
I'd even go so far as to recommend putting that money specifically into things that promote your long-term economic stability, e.g. is it enough to let you buy a home that's going to have monthly expenses below what you're paying in rent? There's plenty of economic uncertainty out there right now, but I feel confident in one thing: Even if the entire economy goes into the crapper rent will not go down. In addition the real estate market is pretty soft right now because of uncertainty, so if you're in a position to purchase that may let you basically lock in your monthly housing costs for a decade or more.
100% correct. Taking 10% away to remove downside risk of the remaining 90% is an absolute no-brainer, especially if it is a meaningful sum of money to you.
Indeed; I can't imagine a world where 11% higher gains makes a significant difference. Either that 11% is a large number in an absolute sense, in which case the 89% you retained is also VERY large; or it's not that big of an absolute number and doesn't matter that much anyway.
Obviously you are guessing probabilities to plug in but they can be based on other exits etc. Someone in the know on startup equity could offer this as a consultation service.
I love my ErgoDox EZ but I have the same problem as you. Even after a few years, I'm still not used to the location of some of the punctuation keys that you need when you're writing code (braces, pipe, etc.) which in turn really hampers my flow state. I end up undocking and using my MBP keyboard when I'm writing code because I just can't get into that same flow state on my ErgoDox.
I think the problem is that in spots where the concepts build on one another, you need to memorize the lower level concepts or else it'll be too hard to make progress on the higher level concepts.
If you're trying to expand polynomials and you constantly have to re-derive multiplication from first principles, you're never going to make any progress on expanding polynomials.
There's a very large lower-middle to upper-middle class that is going to be price sensitive.
And that's the point. Maybe I'm pretty well off but $15/day is still painful for me to drive in every day. But! Occasionally I REALLY need to drive my car in to the city, so instead of driving in five times/week I just drive in once/week. That's 80% fewer trips, a huge reduction.
> The price will determine how poor you have to be to get forced to do without so the wealthy can benefit from an increase in quality of life.
Doesn't that basically describe access to all scarce resources?
If you don't like the idea of money being used as a way to allocate scarce resources then another way to look at it is forcing people to pay for negative externalities (traffic, pollution). And I don't see why poor people should have to pay less for creating the same negative externalities.
> Why should my taxes get used to build infrastructure that's going to be subjected to congestion pricing that prices me out of using that infrastructure?
I think the arguments here are
1. Rich people pay a much higher percentage of the cost of the infrastructure. If you're so poor then you might not be paying for any of it anyway.
2. You still benefit from the infrastructure - fire trucks, police cars and deliveries are all using the roads to your benefit, even if you don't even drive on them
3. This is very similar to someone saying "why should I pay for roads when I don't own a car?"
4. It's also similar to "why should I pay for schools when I don't have a kid?" These things better society as a whole even if you don't use them directly*
I can agree with a lot of that, but part of what I don't like is when I pay for luxury things I can't use. For example, if the city decides to subsidize a stadium, but I can't afford tickets to any events, how do I benefit from paying for part of that via property taxes?
Or another example would be post-secondary education. Where I live it's partially subsidized, so my taxes go towards it even if I can't afford to attend. Sure, there's an overall benefit to having an educated population, but I'm being forced to subsidize other peoples' educations and they benefit directly in the form of increased earning potential which translates into a better standard of living.
I don't have kids and I don't have a problem paying taxes for fully subsidized K-12 education where everyone gets access no matter what.
> For example, if the city decides to subsidize a stadium, but I can't afford tickets to any events, how do I benefit from paying for part of that via property taxes?
I suspect the economic benefits for this kind of thing may not actually hold up, but the argument there would be that you benefit from the new stadium because it creates jobs and attracts spending in your city, which results in a bunch of benefits that you do get to appreciate (new restaurants, more tax revenue, more job opportunities etc) even if you never attend an event at the stadium.
To see what I mean, click "Creating a Feature" then start scrolling up. Notice that "Creating a Feature" is still highlighted even though the entire screen is made up of text from the "Software" section.
I probably only noticed this because I recently implemented a similar "active anchor" solution with Intersection Observer.
This works for things in the past but not things in the future.
If I say I want something to happen at 8pm New York City time on January 7, 2028 and then the DST rules for NYC change, I likely still want it to happen at 8pm. Converting to UTC and back to local time loses that information and it will happen at the wrong time.
I 100% agree with you, and don't set cron jobs/scheduled tasks this way. I only use this for displaying date/time to users.
With that said, I do appreciate the comment, and would have to make sure that if I run scheduled tasks in the future, they are run when the user wishes them to be completed based on when that user sets it to be completed (so would most likely not convert to UTC, and save the timezone with the date/time).
The point is not to improve it until you actually need to change it.
Like you said, you're probably bad at predicting which code is going to need changes in the future, so if it's working now and you don't need to change it then it's a silly risk to try to improve it right now.
Yeah there are just a lot of titles with weird rights situations that no one cares about resolving. Maybe you lost clearance on a song in the movie, or one of the actors has a clause in their contract, or some company bought the distribution rights for a certain territory and then went out of business.
Lots of situations where resolving the rights issues is going to cost more than you expect the movie to bring in, especially once you start talking about splitting the revenue with online storefronts.
The interesting discussion is how much you should take off the table if the offer is uncapped.