I absolutely love this, and it nails genre really well. I think it’s optimised for English, right? The result of trying to get it to speak Spanish is pretty funny!
Nice! It is best at pronouncing in English, but we've had a bunch of fun trying to get other languages too. Sometimes you can make things happen phonetically.
Even for english words that it doesn't get right the first time haha
Hi, thanks for posting! :) It reminds me of https://togetherjs.com/ which I guess you looked at? What were the shortfalls/differences that you found you had to address? Is your product React-only?
Liveblocks does not come with a specific UI. We're providing APIs to create rooms and share states between users. The state can be volatile (like cursors, focused input, selection) or persisted even when the session is over, like a figma file or a google document (this part is still in private beta). We're using custom CRDTs for the persisted state.
We only have a javascript client and react client, but we plan to support more technologies in the future. Even native clients for desktop or mobile if there is an interest.
I have a cheap Chinese-made doorbell with eight tune settings. The first is Fur Elise, and the traditional "ding dong" is number eight. Any time the power goes off it resets to number one. Needless to say I have given up clicking the button and resigned to my fate as a Fur-Elise-Doorbell-Person.
I'll take "things you can do when you're single"... can't quite imagine sidling up to significant other with the gambit "Darling, would you mind terribly if I spent £1000 on Kazakhstani emoji domains?"
I'll never understand this, but I see it all the time. People should have shared money, and they should also have their own money. Does my wife like it when I buy myself expensive toys? I have no idea, it's irrelevant unless I stop covering the bills.
It's for family budgeting and trust. We generally ask/inform if we are going to spend more than $100 on any given project/item. This helps both of us realize if it's a need or want. That way if I mention I'm going to get a new video game, I'll be stopped if its the third one in a month. Or if she wants new luggage, is it because it is needed or is it desired because it's a new color that is available.
You might make enough money to not really need this kind of consent. That's great if you do. For us, it is just a small check to help us get to our goals.
Our solution was to sit down and decide what amount and cadence of "fun money" we can safely allocate to ourselves, and we can save or spend that individually.
In our case we have very different spending habits - I love to get a fairly regular coffee-shop latte & croissant, or fancy restaurant meals with friends, and similar things that savings gurus tell you will prevent you from ever retiring (my spouse's point of view).
My partner likes to spend way too much (imo) on "toys" once or twice a year.
We spent way too much time being obnoxiously judgemental at each other before we did the math and discovered each spending pattern works out almost exactly the same in aggregate over a year or two. Now we just set that aside and there's no judging because we know that the amount spent averages out to under what we decided was reasonable.
We do the same, but in reverse: we roughly figured out what we need for shared spending, and have both set up automatic transfers into our shared checking account from which those expenses are paid. Everything that remains can be spent at will without having to consult the other.
Yup, the same here down to the no kids. The tricky bit is deciding on what counts as 'shared spending' — my partner is insistent that it should cover necessary bills only, I think it should cater for almost everything we share including meals out, for example.
I'd love to hear more details on how you are defining 'shared spending'. I've seen my parents have major conflict over control of spending and this shared account idea is very appealing to me, when I need it.
What do you want it to mean? There's no right or wrong answer but there's basically four fairly common ways to do it across the spectrum: 1) two individual accounts only and you pay everything separately; 2) joint account is for truly joint bills only - think mortgage yes, car payment no; 3) joint account is for "family" expenses - mortgage, cars, groceries regardless of who will eat them, etc.; 4) one joint account only and 100% of spending comes out of there.
#4 seems very common for my parents' generation (in their 60s). #1 seems like a logistical headache for something like a mortgage.
My ex-wife and I basically followed #2. This works fine for a lot of people. It worked fine for us until it didn't - unrelated to the OP, but if your spouse runs up a shitload of CC debt while you're married, you're responsible for half of it. If she cashes in a 401(k) and uses the entire proceeds to pay off said debt, you're responsible for half the taxes.
My current SO and I have discussed merging accounts will probably do something closer to #3 - each of us putting in somewhere between 50-75% of our income into a joint account, and the rest is personal money. But the joint account is for everything. Obviously joint stuff yes but basically anything that isn't 100% individual will come out of that account.
So, as mentioned, right now it's just essentials: mortgage and house bills really. Everything else we pay for individually — our own mobile bills, etc. We tend to alternate on things like meals out.
Yep, my wife and I each have separate checking accounts that are basically our own allowances, set up with an automatic recurring transfer every month. We're fortunate enough to have enough financial security to do this.
My wife and I do the same thing. 99% of the time the answer from the other is "Yeah go for it, I don't care". But there has been occasions where one, usually my wife, says "we might want to wait on that" or something to that effect. It's worked for us for 20+ years.
Not being snarky: What's the alternative? Like, what would happen if you didn't do that?
I ask because my wife and I spend money however we like, and I think it'd be quite strange if she checked in with me before spending $150. Is there some useful context or previous over-spending that you're solving, or is it something you'd recommend for everyone?
People generally treat their partners like pets or property where they gain agency over each other’s wallets and body.
I could careless what my partner spends his or her money on or even whom they decide to sleep with. We treat each other as equals to make their own decisions together or apart.
If you’re with an irresponsible person then you either break off the relationship or agree to suffer with the consequences of their actions.
I doubt I’m the only one a bit surprised by this post.
Do you live with your partner? How do you split shared or somewhat-shared expenses? Are your incomes equal? Who has the role of managing expenses? If you go out to dinner, who pays? What if you share a dessert? (.. etc - you get my point.)
I hope you’re willing to expand given your enthusiasm for your lifestyle, but more context will help.
I’m not the parent commenter, but, the same thing comes up with friends and housemates. Even married couples who are otherwise “traditional” sometimes keep their finances separate. You each pay rent. If you go on a trip together or buy something for the house, you split the costs. The shared expenses are the easy conversations. If anything, sharing all money obfuscates the harder ones.
We have our own personal accounts and then one shared joint account for things we decide to buy together.
When we buy property, we buy it together or if one chooses to buy it alone that’s OK as well.
We also have a loose relationship document that we have created and regularly review to discuss things important to us.
- death
- children
- retirement
- house chores
- parenting
- sex
- commitments
Whatever style of relationship model you have overcommunication and active listening are extremely important especially as it deals with ones feelings, needs and fears.
ALWAYS handle tough conversations the same day (preferably) or week to avoid spiraling negativity and resentment.
Spending habits become exponentially more important the less money you make. If you make $125k as a software developer in a MCOL area you can basically spend whatever you want and if you're not downright reckless you're going to be fine.
If you're a couple whose combined income is $50k, spending is important and you simply can't afford to have your partner blow $80 on something because that could cause you to miss a bill, incur late/NSF fees, etc. My parents are elderly now and there's certainly a generational aspect as well but they made very little when I was growing up and they both knew every dollar that left the checking account. I make good money in tech and my SO is a physician so we just need to decide what portion of our income is allocated to joint expenses and the rest will work itself out. There's ways to optimize it of course but an NSF fee from the bank or a $30 late fee from Comcast is not really a concern for us the way they were both very real concerns for my parents.
No, there are no consequences for not telling, at most we would be a little disappointed. This doesn't happen that often. Maybe once a month or so, and it's always "Hey I'm gonna by X for Y." "OK". Then we are a little less shocked when we see a $130 charge show up on our statement.
We do have saving goals, like for a house, paying off bills, etc. We aren't wealthy people my any measure either, so every bit counts.
Life is just different for us that don't make as much money and are trying to get ahead.
You can still have personal budgets, even if they are very small. Heck, when things are tight, even having 10 Euro personal "fun money" a month for each partner can give a bit of freedom.
You should do something about your financial situation if that seems like a lot of money to you.
Edit: how is it controversial that if you are poor, you should try to do something about it? To claim it is impossible to escape poverty is madness (unless you are sick or handicapped). Obviously the only way to escape is if you do something about it.
Even if you just earn 5$ per hour, you can try to save something. 1000$ would be 200 hours, not impossible. A better strategy would be to try to find a job that pays better, though.
> To claim it is impossible to escape poverty is madness
This is an offensively wrong statement and suggests an extremely privileged and out-of-touch upbringing. There are numerous - hundreds - of articles explaining in-depth why it's very expensive to be poor in the US.
> Even if you just earn 5$ per hour, you can try to save something. 1000$ would be 200 hours, not impossible.
It really sounds like you're suggesting that someone in poverty should be willing to work for below minimum wage for 200 hours (5 weeks of full-time work) to save $1000 to "invest" on Kazakh emoji domain names? I would typically assume I'm misunderstanding someone since that's such an incredibly asinine comment, but given the first half of the comment I have to wonder if that's what you actually mean.
"This is an offensively wrong statement and suggests an extremely privileged and out-of-touch upbringing. There are numerous - hundreds - of articles explaining in-depth why it's very expensive to be poor in the US."
Nobody says it is not "expensive to be poor". But it is idiotic to claim it is impossible to escape poverty. Billions of people have done so in the last century.
"It really sounds like you're suggesting that someone in poverty should be willing to work for below minimum wage for 200 hours (5 weeks of full-time work) to save $1000 to "invest" on Kazakh emoji domain names? I would typically assume I'm misunderstanding someone since that's such an incredibly asinine comment, but given the first half of the comment I have to wonder if that's what you actually mean."
No, your interpretation is asinine. However, if you believe "emoji domains" or whatever have a shot at becoming a viable business, doing that is an option. Personally I would suggest trying to find a better paying job first. But if you can't, what would you suggest? Vote Democrat and hope for a minimum wage law, which will then make you lose your job?
Obviously, if you don't believe in the emoji business, don't invest in it. Find something else to invest in.
I've never been that poor, but I've had limited funds in the past, and I can say that having even a small amount of money that you're psychologically comfortable spending on anything is a massive relief. Sometimes the best thing you can do in a situation largely out of your control is to consciously take back any amount of control you can, even if it ends up being more symbolic than anything.
This is a topic we covered in pre-marital counseling. The exact approach you pick matters less than making sure you both agree on it. My wife and I share all of our money and agree on big expenses before they happen.
you must not have kids. If my wife and I have relatively large personal budgets to spend on ourselves, it would feel like we are denying our kids a nicer holiday or a nicer college education.
Unless of course you're rich enough to afford everything.
I guess this is a problem only in USA. In Europe, the education is inexpensive enough with government funding and some effort from the child(which eventually pays back). Holiday vacations are usually for the whole family or organized by the school so this is planned expense. And in my opinion most of the expensive "toys" are usually not good for the child, like giving a sever year old an iPad/iPhone. I prefer to go with toys that spark creativity which usually are less expensive. That is not to say I would not buy expensive toys, however I believe that they should be given as rewards for memorable achievements or and to teach them what investment is. However I do admit that during the first five years the expenses for a child are huge, because most things have very short utilization lifespan - strollers, clothes, furniture, toys etc.
Instead of shared money with personal allowances, which works in constricting manner, we have shared goals approach to which we contribute whenever and however we can, which works in contributing manner. And we try to keep our budget aligned with our forecast for the goal or we reevaluate the forecast in case of unforeseen circumstances like the COVID pandemic. Of course we don't hit all of our targets but with time we get better at evaluating. Also any unspent money from a missed goal start as base for another goal.
Way to miss the point. The examples I gave are just illustrations and not restricted to the USA. In simple terms: if you make a "selfish" purchase there is always an opportunity cost in terms of money not spent on loved ones. I don't see how parents can justify having a large personal budget unless their total budget is millionaire-level large. Have nicer and/or more frequent holidays instead, or get a larger house in a nicer neighborhood, hire a nanny perhaps.
"there is always an opportunity cost in terms of money not spent on loved ones" seems to me that by that logic you don't "love" yourself and you put very little value to yourself and that you only serve your loved ones. Everything that I purchase and that brings me happiness in term usually makes the people around me that love me also happy. Either by improving my mood and so improving my social interaction with them or simply because they care about me. And most of the things that I can and will buy for myself are transiently valuable to them as well. I buy an Omega watch -> someday I will leave that watch to my kid hopefully with a good story and a loving memory. I get a gaming PC/console -> I get to spend time with my kid playing a game. I build a utility room into my garage -> I get to teach my kid how to build/fix something. I buy a telescope -> I can spend time showing them the stars/galaxies etc. I do not buy something like that when there are more pressing matters at hand. However if we are meeting our common goals the money that we earned are for us to spend in whatever way we want, including giving presents for each other(even in the form of money). The freedom to care for ourselves improves our care for each other.
Where by large you mean 1000$? Why would you have to be a millionaire to be able to afford that? What exactly do you plan to buy for your kids?
Expensive holidays are not automatically better, by the way. You don't need a luxury hotel abroad, maybe kids would actually have more fun going camping.
Also everybody seems to be missing the point that those 1200$ from the article where a business expense, not a "selfish purchase" as such.
I have a one year old, and I grew up poor. We still don't have a lot. But at some point you don't have a money management issue, you have an income issue.
It's very specific to each couple. My wife and I both trust each other and consult each other on big purchases. We also trust each other not to be controlling and judgmental. We have no need for separation of money. Not everyone can do this and that's also fine.
On the one hand, I'm single and if I wanted to I could also blow a few grand on emoji domains for an experiment, then I could.
On the other, I'd be taking a few grand from my savings for my mortgage deposit.
This isn't about relationship status, the author of this post just has money to burn.
And even if the author expected to get their money back through paid sales...they're on the hook for those accounts now unless he personally writes it off.
Here in the United States, there's well-publicized research into how hard many families would have to work to come up with the money to cover an unexpected $400 expense.
I didn't see anything about how much they would have to work, just what percentage would have trouble coming up with the money on short notice. It doesn't even imply they are poor, they could simply put all their money into their mortgage every month.
Could you elaborate? I'd really like to understand why you don't have any spare money, despite of two good earners in the household?
"A joke" is also incorrect, the guy is trying to make money. Nevertheless, if you reframe it as "for fun", vacations presumably should count. I rather doubt you would be unable or unwilling to spend 1000$ on a vacation?
Nobody says that everybody should be willing to spend money on an emoji email project. That just happens to be that person's interest, so they spent money on it. Don't you have any interests at all that cost money? I personally wouldn't spend 1000$ on many things that other people spend it for, but that is not the same as not being able to afford it.
$1000 is less than 1% of the money I have in savings sitting in the bank. After all my expenses this month I better have more than $1000 left over when I get paid or somethings gone horribly wrong!
Yet...
I still wouldn't spend $1000 on anything outside of essentials without having a really good reason. I'm not spending $1000 on a holiday, that seems mental to me but then I'm not big into traveling.
I like gaming but I can't bring myself to spend the $2-3k or whatever it would be to get a good gaming PC. SO I have a PS4 and I mostly get games on sale or "free" via PS+.
Hell, I'm even considering whether or not I want to spend <$1000 on a PS5 if they are ever available for sale again... The PS4 is fine and I don't really need it so it feels like too much money to spend on something I don't really need. I can definitely live without it.
I just feel $1000 is a LOT of money. There's an amount of money that is a lot and an amount of money that I don't consider a lot. I think that break off is actually around $400. More than that trips a mental switch for me.
Sounds like you might also be starving yourself and your family for no reason? If you have > $100k in the bank, and presumably a much larger multiple of that in investments and other assets - why not spend $1k sometimes on something that you could enjoy or that (in this case) could earn you more money?
Maybe "not a lot of money" was a bit misleading. It really depends on what you want to achieve. I agree that it feels like a lot of money for spending it on a gaming PC (I have the same debate with myself). But since you are a head of something, you probably know how much it costs to hire people to get anything done. So 1000$ does not seem like a lot for investing in a project, for example - even if you don't pay any money for anything, you'll rake up 1000$ in opportunity costs quickly.
If you want to achieve anything, you'll need a lot more than 1000$, so in relation to that 1000$ seems little. And I don't just mean for projects, but in general, if you want to change things in your life (get an education, have kids, whatever).
And it also is not a lot in terms of how much money people need and earn. I think most people will spend more than 1000$ on rent, food clothing and so on every month. Especially if you have children.
I wouldn't spend 1000$ every day just like that, but I would spend it for special occasions (like going on holidays).
If you're wealthy, sure. Being one of the Americans that can handle a $400 surprise expense doesn't mean you can casually handle a $1000 joke.
But it's not simply $1,000. It's a $1,000/year commitment.
It's also not simply $1,000/year. The article claims they spent weeks on it. That could be anywhere from $500 to $50k in unspecified labor, whether that's simply opportunity cost or the estimated value of your nights and weekends, for an unspecified duration.
Maybe there was no meaningful opportunity cost, maybe this person is well off enough they don't really have to make hard choices or worry about where they will live if their $50k idea is a total loss.
It's not a joke, he is trying to make money. If it doesn't work out, he can cancel it after a year, or only keep the most successful domain names.
As you said, it is nothing compared to opportunity costs. The person from the article seems to also have a day job, though, so they won't end up on the street if the project fails.
Why can't you handle 400$? I have many times been in the situation where an extra 400$ would have been painful. But it was a temporary situation. It doesn't imply 1000$ is a lot of money to spend on a project.
You also have opportunity costs by staying in your current job and not trying new things.
I feel mostly angry when I read the comment I'm replying to. There's simply too many people not able to spare $1000 who are not in a position to change that, for reasons outside their control. Although people posting such comments are likely not listening to reason anyway, I feel something needs to be said.
I'm now curious where your question comes from, though. Note that I'm aware of the "virtue signalling" narrative. But better that than blaming people for their poverty.
"many people not able to spare $1000 who are not in a position to change that, for reasons outside their control"
What would be reasons they couldn't change that? I am genuinely curious? Not counting being too sick to work (of course such cases exists, but it would be silly to cite them).
Frankly you getting angry makes me suspect you want such people to exist, to fuel your feeling of virtue and social justice superiority.
I thought about that but I think the main advantage of doing it this way is to corner the market somewhat. You get all the "good" ones and make it harder for anybody to clone your idea.
Personally, if my partner dropped £1000 on something goofy like this, and all bills were paid, I'd probably cheer them on. There's nothing wrong with spending money on something that's got no purpose other than making people smile/laugh/what have you.
I hear so many people mull over money in finance forums, constantly saving every penny that is possible. If you go to finance forums of reddit or Dave Ramsey cult stuff you will even hear people brag about how they have more than a whole retirement's worth saved up yet continue to save and penny pinch. Why? It is ok to buy something because it makes you happy. Not everything needs a complicated pro/con list, a 30 day waiting period, and signed off approval from your partner.
It is one thing if you can't pay your bills. You should definitely pay those first. And of course put money towards savings and retirement each month. But don't stock all of your money away. You could die before using any of it.
I enjoy cycling. Road cycling and mountain biking. Anyone else who is in the sport knows that it gets expensive. Decent full suspension mountain bikes don't even start until about $3,000 nowadays. Mid-tier mountain bikes are priced around $5,000 - 6,000. A lot of people ask why I would spend that kind of money on a bike. "I could buy an old car for that" they often say. Great, then you go buy an old Honda civic, I don't really care that I "could" do that. I don't want an old car, I already have a good car. I want a nice mountain bike. I ride it 3-4 times a week and it makes me happy. Happier than watching Netflix, happier than playing a video game, happier than hiking. It makes me happy and if I can afford it, then I should reward myself. That is what life is all about.
If you enjoy cooking, go buy yourself some expensive ingredients to spoil yourself. If you love movies, treat yourself to some movies at the theaters.
Money management is like healthy eating. Eating too much is very bad for you, just like spending too much. But you can also over-correct with spending. Spending too little is just like eating too little, you can sometimes hurt yourself going the other way. I know people who take the financial FIRE principle too far. They stress about money that I know they can afford. They stress about going out to dinner one night a month because they only have $50 a month in their budget for eating out and now they are going to spend $70 this month. Why? Enjoy the fucking meal. Life is far too short. It's ok to spend money just for the enjoyment that it buys you. Your mental health will thank you.
I find the whole FIRE thing a little odd. Why would you spend your entire life on a short budget just to 'retire early'. Besides, how enjoyable is that retirement if you're constantly fighting to pinch every penny you can.
But why would you do that? I mean if that's you money, why would you ask your partner? I'm pretty frugal, don't spend on stupid things easily (well, things that I find stupid, at least), but if I had a business idea or even a fun project I don't think I'd need permission from my partner to spend my own money on it. Discussing it is a different story, of course.
Maybe in a “partnership” you don’t need to ask a “partner”.
But in marriage you don’t have “your money” - you are both on the same team, so all money are shared.
If you spend $1000 on something random, that sets your team, your family, back of its common goals - house down payment, vacation, etc.
I am in a long marriage,we each have our own money and joint account money. We are both in the same team and can spend our own money. Each person has the same percentage of take-home to spend as an individual.
This is just you having "extra" money. I guess it's a demographic thing but do you (and everyone else) not understand that over 50% of people (in the US at least) don't have "extra" money. The money they make is already allocated before it's made, any sort of "extra" spending goes on a credit card or forces some other payment to be not made on time, often incurring fees. In some cases that money would deplete a small savings balance.
This is pre-covid numbers but 69% of Americans have less than $1000 in savings. 45% have no savings, and roughly 30% spend more than they make each month, accumulating and juggling credit card balances / short term loans.
I'm from a poor area in the US and most people have $0 "extra" money. As an example my high school 10 year reunion was a few years ago and the target goal was $20. Even with a year's notice most people said that would be too expensive and they wouldn't have it. ($40 per couple).
We had multiple fundraisers to try and get everyone to participate. The fundraisers were everyone buying extra chicken wings with their food stamp cards and giving it to a local restaurant that cooks them and sells fundraiser plates and a car wash sponsored by the bowling alley that gives a free game to anyone who gets a $5 car wash.
How long can you continue to spend more each month than you make?
I don't fully trust that story. Maybe many of the people who have "no savings" have a mortgage to pay off? Technically they have a debt and all spare money goes to the bank, but really they own a house that is worth more than the debt?
In such cases I'd say it is more of a mindset issue.
I don't get the quotes. Not sure whether you're mocking or hinting at my use of the word partner as being incorrect in this context or you are downplaying the seriousness of (romantic) relationships outside of marriage. Well, if it's the first, indeed there is the name of such "partnerships" it's officially called a domestic partnership and legally not very different from marriage in most secular states in the western societies.
If it's the second one, it may come as a surprise, but you you don't have to go to the church, even in front of a state representative or throw a big party to start and maintain a normal, pair bond based relationship or even a family.
And I'm pretty sure that most people who end up marrying, start with such "partnerships" and only "upgrade" when they feel that it "works". Which also means that they'll set most of the rules before the act of marrying. It's only a guess, but it wouldn't make sense to make too big changes compared to what you have tried, what worked and what you've probably grown to like. I'd also guess that it's the same with money things. At least it should be, because it's said to be one of the few that can cause serious disagreements between partners.
Anyway, to put it short: different people require and like to maintain different level of independence (or the illusion of it, doesn't matter). Also, $1000 can be a large sum for one family and a smaller one for the other, so it's actually pretty hard to even gauge your opinion. E.g. I live in Eastern Europe, work as a software consultant and while $1000 is about the average monthly salary it's just a fraction of mine and my partner would never see it as a setback if I spent that amount on myself because I just felt like.
Of course, if we have common goals then you should not endanger those without discussing, but I wouldn't like to be in a situation where basically 100% of my earnings are accounted towards a common goal. That's just too much stress. Then you either making too little (which is very stressful) or have very stretched goals. And while it sounds almost the same, the difference is that in the second case you do have a choice to make. And it's better to choose a more relaxed set of goals and life. Maybe that 2 stories house in the suburbs or that 2nd car, etc. isn't worth it to have to beg your partner to blow $300 on a more expensive laptop. Or even just to have that thought in the back of your mind.
It's a matter of trust; my wife and I don't sweat the small stuff, but if we're spending more than £100 on something, we'll probably discuss it first - that doesn't mean she gets to say no to the top of the range MacBook Pro, just that she knows what's going on.
I don't know how common it is. I'd guess it's at least also pretty common that it doesn't. But the GP didn't even talk about a formal/legal marriage (if that makes a difference in your reasoning). They said significant other.
I guess software dev can afford to blow 1000$/year on silly side projects. Especially seeing how he got back significant portion of his expenditure. Being single or not has nothing to do with that? It sure seems fair to agree on spending policy with your significant other beforehand, but other than that...
You don't have to go all-in, but a common wallet is very useful as a wash account for common expenses.
Having an account just for expenses, with no overdraft, that's usually at $0.00 balance is useful for other purposes too (ACH pull is dangerous! Especially when everyone who has ever looked at your check can do it)
It was kinda like that in 2013 when I suggested btc mining to my wife to cover the costs of the electric heat in our new house. And here we still are...
can't quite imagine sidling up to significant other with the gambit "Darling, would you mind terribly if I spent £1000 on Kazakhstani emoji domains?"
There's a PSA running on Australian radio these days that says if your spouse doesn't let you control your own money, that's a form of abuse. There's even a hotline to report that you're being abused.
Find yourself a partner who will share in your enthusiasm.
From the looks of the author’s website, he very carefully time boxes his projects and weighs the expense and revenue generation. This is very different from spending a grand on something with unbounded time costs and no tangible return, like buying a boat.
I've come to believe that there's a certain amount of insanity required to be a great entrepreneur. Like Jobs or Musk--their personal qualities aside, they both had arguably legitimately insane visions that they refused to let people talk them out of.
The side effect is they're also crazy in other ways (Musk-time and the billionaire-playboy-cyrptocoin-gambler being easy examples), but I think it really does take someone who operates with a totally different set of constraints on the world to pull Really Cool Stuff off. Like reusable rockets. Or electric performance cars. Or an incredibly versatile computer that fits in your pocket (while also giving the middle finger to Flash, the incumbent web media tech at the time).
Steve Job didn’t invent the smartphone and Elon Musk didn’t invent the electric car, they did both make those things cool.
Steve Jobs also had a treatable form of pancreatic cancer and died from it, because he refused traditional medicine.
You can point to countless inventions and advances in humanity that are not due to crazy asshole geniuses. What happens to people is that the better you are at something, the more willing they are to forgive your flaws. This allows those flaws to grow and grow, to the point where you’re accusing random people that insult you of being pedophiles. But these flaws are not a requisite part of being driven and not giving up.
Hmmm, I wonder if the ratio of "insane billionaires : insane people in mental institutions" correlates to the ratio of "sane billionaires : sane people (presumably not in mental institutions)"?
Are you more or less likely too be a billionaire if you're insane?
(Is there even such a thing as a "sane billionaire"?)
If we just mean "not evidently delusional or psychotic", then probably a billionaire is no less likely to be sane than anyone - probably if anything more so, one power of money being that of reliable access to medical care.
If we instead by 'sane' mean "firmly grounded and operating within consensus reality", as I once heard the term defined, then I think the question becomes considerably more interesting. (Whose consensus?)
The day I have to ask my significant other how to spend money I earn is the day I will quit that relationship. I get that some couples throw everything on a pile and go a pseudo-democratic way of spending things, but I have never understood this meme of males telling all the world that they have to ask their wives for permission to spend money. We're in the 21st century now. She is supposed to not be dependant on him, and the same should apply in reverse.
I've always lived in Southport and your assessment is more or less true. But as I'm preparing to bring up a kid here, the decent schools, parks, and services are all I'm really looking for in a place to live. There are regeneration schemes under way with various levels of promise: https://standupforsouthport.com/southport-town-deal-5-marine...
The only other thing I'd add, like a commenter below, is that we went walking the other day on the frosty grassland of the beach, under a beaming wintersun, and it was really quite beautiful.
It blocks some tracking, but is it a good content blocker? Last time I checked I still needed to install ublock or equivalent for acceptable performance. How hard it is to incorporate something an extension already provides?
Not hard at all, they could include uBlock add-on by default (as they did with Pocket) except allow people to disable it this time.
They do rely on Google's advertising revenue for multiple $100M of funding; so they presumably don't want to be too successful in democratising ad-blocking.
Eich used to be a controlling influence on FF (as Mozilla CEO), since he was ousted he heads Brave browser which includes content blocking by default (and a content revenue model).
In short perhaps FF/Mozilla are curtailed by financial considerations.
Not unless they buy uBlock first, which is what they did with Pocket. And unlike Pocket, which was already a company looking to get bought, uBlock is very much not that.
