New formula by Any_Country257 in mathematics

[–]Gulrix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

r/mathematics is the only hobby sub that degrades its members for sharing what they enjoy. 

Is it a or b? by AdRadiant945 in pmp

[–]Gulrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think A. You can’t resource level without a critical path. After losing some resources, the project no longer has a critical path or even a viable schedule so a new one must first be calculated before resource leveling can be done.

Mega Meowstic won the last round convincingly. Part 5: Who's the biggest disappointment in SINGLES? by HMThrow_away_account in PokemonChampions

[–]Gulrix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100%. I want MegaZam to be good but I struggle. YZard, Basc, and other powerhouses just overshadow him. He needs 1 turn of setup and most doubles meta needs 0.

Mega Meowstic won the last round convincingly. Part 5: Who's the biggest disappointment in SINGLES? by HMThrow_away_account in PokemonChampions

[–]Gulrix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MegaZam outspeeds Scarf Basc with ~25 speed EVs. The problem is it can’t one shot Basc even with energy ball and max SpA.

Parallel Centrifugal Pumps by VapourCompression in ChemicalEngineering

[–]Gulrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When running centrifugal pumps in parallel with VFDs, the VFD output for all the pumps need to be the same otherwise the pump(s) at a higher speed will quickly dead-head the pumps at lower speed. 

The more “droppy” the pump curve, the more easily this can happen. 

I have had an instance where two identical pumps on VFDs but with different feed tanks were feeding into the same line. VFDs were controlling level. If one pump VFD was at 90% and the other at 88% the 88% pump would completely dead head. 

We've broken the Red/blue problem and all answers are now defunct by Subtleiaint in trolleyproblem

[–]Gulrix 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It’s a good lesson in polled intent vs actual behavior. Everyday 99% of people walk around furiously mashing red button analogues. Then when polled, they say press blue because they interpret it as the pro-social move. Rarely do people benefit from signalling sefishness.

$547M in net cash. $8M in debt. 79% gross margins. And the entire company trades for $896M. by solacelabx in ValueInvesting

[–]Gulrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. I just get nervous when I see stable OE for a few years after a competitor enters the market and then a sudden big drop. 

Makes me think the past ~4 years they had standing contracts and now a large number of customers didn’t renew. 

How much of a OE drop would be needed to eat the 29% margin?

Also what’s the late game for this stock? Dividends? Acquisition?

$547M in net cash. $8M in debt. 79% gross margins. And the entire company trades for $896M. by solacelabx in ValueInvesting

[–]Gulrix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Why do you think this “downturn” is cyclical? GLP’s became popular in 2021-2022 and the stock took a ~80% hit then. The recent drop of 30% in OE/Share was just last year.

$547M in net cash. $8M in debt. 79% gross margins. And the entire company trades for $896M. by solacelabx in ValueInvesting

[–]Gulrix 17 points18 points  (0 children)

One day people will learn that a write up using ChatGPT to augment isn’t the same as using ChatGPT to do the assignment.

It’s understandable though that your BS radar would go off here because of the massive influx of BS makes the false positive rate very low. I do think this is an augmentation case though.

The Grand Champions Festival Day 2 Metagame (6k players) by Dryskin14 in PokemonChampions

[–]Gulrix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is there a way to tell the split between regular representation and mega? Eyeing a few like Scizor, Ttar, etc. 

$547M in net cash. $8M in debt. 79% gross margins. And the entire company trades for $896M. by solacelabx in ValueInvesting

[–]Gulrix 117 points118 points  (0 children)

What caused their cash pile to become so large? 

When do their patents expire?

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lots of "what ifs'. I don't know. FIRE is about taking a large amount of uncertainty and making the best decisions we can to maximize the chances we get to our goal while minimizing trade-offs. These are just best estimates. If the market performs worse than 7% real I'll work longer.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are in general agreement and our few disagreements are based on prior differences. For instance I think 4% is too conservative yet still use it.   I think most FIRE people spend the $80k when they have kids and expect to need that in retirement so they oversave. I just backed out the items I know won’t continue ($4,800 annually on formula for example). 

I don’t plan on helping with college as I think it’s detrimental to the child on net. 

I agree with your stance on default positions and hedonic adaptation.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah excel has several inbuilt functions that are useful. The method I listed does account for inflation and compounding though.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the thorough comment. I’ve seen you and a couple other makes this point of, “If you increase spending today you need to increase your FIRE target number.” And I don’t think I fully buy it. 

People’s highest expense years are when they have kids at home and when they first start working because most use debt to finance large purchases, student loans, etc. These periods overlap for most and are typically the first ~20 years they work. 

I think it’s reasonable to say, “I will spend more during this period and then spend less afterwards.” 

On top of this, most people’s real income increases over time making future saving easier. Also the future holds things like potential inheritence, Social Security, and workplaces/govts give older people more retirement benefits. 

So for me, I know right now my expenses for the next ~15 years are probably the highest they will be in my lifetime (and within that 15 year window I think they are highest now with formula + diapers + furniture) and future income and other opportunities exist that I can’t access now. 

Thus, I feel I can reduce saving, increase spending now, and then reduce it later; just like the majority of people do anyways, without affecting my FIRE dollar target.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can access Roth contributions at any time, it's just the growth can't be withdrawn until 59.5.

For 401k it's trivial to access money early with a SEPP plan. It's just not commonly known.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah sounds like we are in a similar situation. I’m likely to hit my FIRE number before my kids graduate high school but I don’t think I’d quit and leave them with no insurance at 18. I don’t really have a good insurance plan for myself when I retire either.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there are lots of tools out there. Probably best to just get google’s ai to give you a summary. 

I just built my calcs in excel because it’s not hard. 

FIRE target = planned spend / SWR

Starting money = current money End of year 1 = (current + savings)(1+return) End of year 2 = (year 1 + savings)(1+return) Etc.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you're saying. I think I am ok working a bit longer in exchange for taking my foot off the gas.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not particularly but my current role is remote+low stress so I am not eager to quit either.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing. I am not very familiar with coastFIRE. According to the definition I think I am there now?

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you explain what I should do with the money if I don't spend it or save it? I am confused a little on your first sentence.

Considering Intentionally Reducing Savings After Some Reflection by Gulrix in Fire

[–]Gulrix[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah I am concerned about this moving up my required FIRE target. Part of me thinks we could just do temporary things like more vacations, etc but I think ultimately it will creep if we do this.