You must have a great product or a great team to secure that many first round investors. Well done.

I have a really good plumber, he's been working on my home and rental property for over 10 years and I trust the hell out of him. We've traded life stories and he's made the same comment about apprenticeships, that is how he learned the basics.

His opinion is but the problem is on both sides, quality youngsters these days aren't that interested in doing something like that but also most successful plumbers don't want to bother because there's not much long term incentive. That used to be that you could train up a young guy and he would be an asset to you for years until he was ready to be in his own business but nowadays everybody wants instant gratification.

I can't disagree, I went through a corporate banking training program myself and by the time it ended I was already applying for other jobs with my new and improved resume rather than wanting to stick around. My old bank's training program still exists but it's really been reduced to a one week crash course rather than a month out of state.

He's told me his own son is a teenager and not showing much aptitude for college life and says he'd like to follow his dad's footsteps. Says he is torn because he'd love to trade up his son but only if his son puts his best foot forward, just like he's also willing to fund his college education but it would piss him off to watch his son just party it up and graduate with an easy degree.

The Kingdom of Mexico is older than the province of New Mexico, the country Mexico is older than the state of New Mexico.

[removed]

Info about the visualization:

• Data source: Coca-Cola's reported earnings
• Tool used to create the visualization: SankeyArt (I am also the developer of the tool)

I know the data itself is important, but this presentation is as basic as it gets.

[deleted]

[removed]

In a free economy, the benefits flow to many people. In a state controlled economy like Venezuela 🇻🇪 the benefits stay with the dictators and their friends.

It is a shitty measurement made to make russia and china seem better of then they are. Lets say 99% of the population eats potatoes and little money get you by but the problem very few has any money at all... then if 99% of the GDP is in corrupted oligarchs sitting in moscow then the measurement is off. Because the population wont buy potatoes and other goods for the 99% because they will never have much of the GDP.

Negative net imports doesn't mean self-sufficient. If we're continuously importing just as much, or more, than we're exporting, we're not relying on our own supply, and don't have the infrastructure in place to use our domestic product. Self-sufficiency would mean we can stop importing oil and separate ourselves from OPEC's pricing monopoly. We cannot.

[removed]

The problem is that you cant measure it as "how long would 100 dollars get me" if 95% of the gdp is in the oligarchs in lets say russia and the avarage babuscha is living on 180 dollars per months.

To look at the avarage purchase power of the avarage citizen you have to use median income and then china and russia would be very far behind. place 20-40 somewhere.

Haha then this chart is even more false. My money as a scandinavian would go longer then the avarage Russian. Holy smokes what a shit measurement.

If you look at the number/ percentage of people that pursue a post secondary education it has increased dramatically since 1960. I’d be curious to see if the grants would have been sustainable as they were.

Russia has is at place 11 not nr 5 so this graph is either false or has some kind of weird measurement.

Source:

https://globalpeoservices.com/top-15-countries-by-gdp-in-2022/

The measurement is even worse then i first thought. They use PPP against GDP... as if the poor babuscha living outside moscow on her 170 dollar pension. It doesnt matter if she can get by on little money because she or the avarage russian would never lay hand on any large part of the GDP.

Lucasfilm would be 12.7b so interestingly, not on the list.
But should definitely be separate.

It's politically unpalatable. Spending on children and the elderly is very difficult to challenge. You have to cut from the working class even if it makes a lot of sense to resume student debt payments and to cut the loan budget.

I don't understand what is being measured here. I think it is showing GDP by Purchasing Power Parity, but I don't understand why it says "average values of GDP". I'm not familiar with that term.

As late as 2000, there was a note posted on the women's room of my uni's chemistry building reminding men that it's a co-ed campus (for 40 years) and men's rooms were 1 floor up or down - they'd swapped alternate floor restrooms rather than add women's rooms. The costs of increased enrollment and diversity don't show up in instruction, but in physical plant, construction, and elsewhere. So does the increasing luxury of campus accommodations. Compared to the 80s, every building now seems to have its own coffee shop; quad dorm rooms are virtually unheard of; exercise facilities; crafting/maker spaces; etc.

Those things definitely go into tuition, fees, and residence costs, which is why (I think) it's important to separate the actual cost of instruction. One might imagine, as powerpoint and smart boards have replaced overheads and chalk, that instructional costs would inflate to accommodate all the new technology, but that doesn't seem to be so. At least in the few places I could find instruction itemized. Faculty salaries (broadly) have just kept pace with inflation.

Growing enrollment has really allowed state governments to mask their slow but steady per capita defunding of higher education.

Who will profit from Venezuela's reserves in the next decades this i am very curious.

They are taking the average GDP adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity over 5 years. The problem is I am not sure PPP works for total GDP, it is meant to reflect the differences in consumer income i.e. how far a consumers wages will go. So someone in the US on say $50 000 may only be able to buy the same amount of goods as someone in country x who is on $40 000 because consumer prices are lower.

But it relies on a basket of consumer goods, so I really don't think it works scaling to GDP as a large part of GDP calculations are not in a sample consumer basket and if you exclude things like property (which is insanely expensive in China) you can end up with wild distortions.

This is what happens when Governments try to make things more affordable.

Agreed. I live to see public funding in comparison to tuition increase.

The biggest is at the top and smallest is at the bottom.... so random.