I’d love to hear about the logistics of how you do this because it’s something I’ve considered trying, at least for a period of time. I keep running into the idea that without consistent, reliable Internet, not to mention the other niceties of productivity like a workspace and monitors, it simply wouldn’t work for more than a few weeks.
Everyone raves about the work-from-home deal but forgets that we’ve all only been doing it for a few months - it’s still new and fresh. After a year or so of doing it I think we’ll start to see more mixed opinion.
Personally I’m OK with either arrangement, it’s more about the choice in the matter. The change of pace that comes with sometimes going into an office vs not is rejuvenating. Or even potentially the choice of being 100% remote and living in a different city for a while. Having those options are the real net benefit.
Perhaps the answer is obvious, but what's the point of such a thought experiment? The issue is how to deal with the world we actually live in. "It would be just as bad in an opposite world" does not sound like a useful finding.
Definitely possible, but unlikely. You’ll find that people of all minority groups make similar assumptions. There were even a few examples in this thread and the article.
That’s a part of why there is such a big push for better minority representation on all fields. VC partnerships, boards, upper management, etc. More diversity means more models of what a successful VC, CEO, Entrepreneur, etc looks like.
People base their beliefs on prior probabilities, before any new evidence is provided.
If all you've ever seen are white CEOs, then it's probably very reasonable to assume that the white guy in a meeting also is the CEO.
It's not racist, but just how your brain works on the priors.
I know that people should strive to not be assuming, but in the end, the brain is an exceptional pattern recognizer, and very much works in subconscious ways.
edit: And before anyone starts claiming racism; I'm just saying that this is how humans work. You collect data all the time, and (hopefully) update your beliefs on said new evidence.
My background in financial engineering is limited to trying to make sense of articles like this so maybe someone more in-the-know would be kind enough to help me understand. But when you securitize an asset, isn’t it typically an asset that has intrinsic value, e.g. property of some sort that can be easily liquidated? It seems to me that recurring revenue for a service only has value as long as that service exists. So if some startup selling dog food subscriptions stops providing that service, the subscriptions are worth exactly zero.
To take the example further, would said startup now be unable to sell the book of business to someone else before going broke?
