The issue is that there isn't a great alternative.
The euro is difficult to manage because of the diffuse control, pound an even smaller economy, RMB just not global enough (and tough argument to see that happening), gold/bitcoin/whatever not the same inherent stability.
Indeed the dollar weakening, but nothing really to take it's place.
The straw man is always that self-serve fails because every user cannot use data well at work. The reality is some users will be inclined to solve their own problems and others will not, but self service is available to many users with deployed BI, and SQL is nearly always not the way they are doing it.
Most times I see this type of article, it's with folks that have never worked in a modeled BI tool. Salesforce data, for example, is very complex. But an ability to make a table of live opportunities with metadata and order them freely, next to usage data in an app is self service BI. It's not hard; it takes some setup; but it's self service.
The idea that folks can jump from business understanding to fully mapping the data as it lives in the data warehouse, on the other hand, is not trivial and won't be. The nuance of the real world is hard.
Different types of users need different interfaces - SQL all the way down to point and click. And there's no free lunch on modeling raw data to bring it to a consumable place for the company.
Has anyone found credible research around mean, min, max, average vis-a-vis climate change? Quick search didn't surface anything beyond lots of average temperatures and median forecasts, but less about the distribution of climate.
Edit: trying to understand the decomposition of average temperatures increasing (more hot days, hotter hot days, etc)
They burned almost a billion dollars in operating cash flow last quarter, and nearly all of their profitability in the past flowed from retail, which has shifted down dramatically. Not quite as simple as extremely profitable.
Maybe single day move on acquisition announcement - ATVI up quite a bit on 1/18, MSFT down that day.
As an aside, the methodology says "We calculate the correlations between 2 securities on the daily closing values of the last 20 years. If one of the two securities has not been on the market for so long, we use all available prices to calculate the correlation." - hopefully the author means daily changes, not daily values, because otherwise everything is spurious.
Specific terms that offer pro rata re-assignment at YC discretion:
"Neither this Agreement nor the rights contained herein may be assigned, by operation of law or otherwise, by Investor without the prior written consent of the Company; provided, however, that this Agreement and/or the rights contained herein may be assigned without the Company’s consent by the Investor to any other entity who directly or indirectly, controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the Investor, including, without limitation, any general partner, managing member, officer or director of the Investor, or any venture capital fund now or hereafter existing which is controlled by one or more general partners or managing members of, or shares the same management company with, the Investor."
This seems odd to write, as [I believe] YC has one of the strongest, least-founder-favorable versions of pro rata. YC sets so many market terms for startups, they could change this dynamic.
In all of this fever people seem to be ignoring this is a diff of $2m of tax incentive down to $1m of tax incentive on someone taking home $6m dollars (the diff between long term cap gains and the 0% with and without the 50% exclusion on $10m).
It’s sad for that person, but the most meaningful impact is to VCs and angels that receive this exception multiple times. Less than the diff of leaving California for a single exit.
"Additionally, our Net Dollar Retention rate for all of our customers was 100%, 105% and 107% for the three months ended December 31, 2019 and 2020 and March 31, 2021"
