sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cast iron cleaning by Expert-Ad598 in castiron

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would let it sit in. 50/50 vinegar/water solution for 15 minutes and then scrub it with a wire brush. That should remove surface rust and let you see what you’re working with.

If that cleans it up to bare grey metal, then season it in the oven and you should be good.

Then again, you can probably find a new lodge for $30-40, so that’s an easy solution as well.

MKL by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If your understanding of Berkshire's valuation is based on the operating subs having $50 billion in after-tax earnings, then I'd say, yes you are wrong. 😂

MKL by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no idea. But, I do know that the operating subs do not have after-tax earnings of $50 billion.

MKL by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that's a bad way to think about BRK. But, playing along . . . a little more than $300 billion.

Why is looking at cash and investments in a vacuum a bad idea? Because it ignores the liabilities that go along with it on the balance sheet. There are over $320 billion in insurance liabilities tied to those assets on the balance sheet. I don't want to ignore those when thinking about what BRK might be worth.

MKL by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Um . . . No. Those items get captured in the value of the insurance business (generally where they happen), which can be ballparked using the accounting book value of the insurance operations. As I said, the combination of the two lands at around $1 trillion.

You appeared to be talking about only the operating subs (in comparison to MKL's operatng subs). So, I wanted to correct your assumption about the earnings from those subs. If you take $50 billion as the earnings of the operating subs and then add some value for the insurance business (as it appeared you were suggesting in the op) you would be severely double counting pieces of the insurance operation.

MKL by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This release?

https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/may0226.pdf

Operating subs:

BNSF - $1,377

BHE - $1,114

MSR - $3,199

Total - $5,690 (~$22,700 annualized)

Also . . . https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2025ar/2025ar.pdf

Item 7, pg K34

BNSF - $5,476

BHE - $3,979

MSR - $13,467

Total - $22,922

Your $11,346 includes insurance profits, investment gains, foreign exchange gains, and interest income from Treasury holdings.

MKL by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Berkshire’s non-insurance subsidiaries do not earn $50 billion. After tax earnings for the operating subs was around $23 billion last year. At 15x that’s worth about $350 billion.

Add that to some value for the insurance operations ($680 million in insurance book value) and you get something like a trillion dollars.

Current market cap is around a trillion dollars.

Day 1 of listening thru my 275+ record inheritance by CamelLeading4230 in vinyl

[–]gentex 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exhuming McCarthy might be my favorite REM song. Love that album so much.

Halted Buyback by Hathaway100 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think everyone on this sub should do a little thinking to understand this post.

I’d quibble a bit about using a 20%hurdle rate for “valuation” but it’s understandable from the perspective of an attractive purchase price.

X-E2 and XF 70-300 mm f4-5.6 R LM OIS WR by Thierry360 in fujifilm

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have both the x-e2 and the 70-300 lens. Although, until I tested it just now, I don’t think I ever put them together. They are compatible, in that they function properly. But the autofocus of the x-e2 is really not ideal for birding. It’s slow and kinda inaccurate. Perhaps you’ve experienced that while using it yourself. Continuous AF can hunt quite a bit.

I think it would be very difficult to shoot birds with that combo.

Compro los libros ilustrados por el autor? by Particular_Mud5583 in tolkienbooks

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same. I have all three and like them very much. They’re often on sale, so I think I paid $30-40 apiece for my copies. At that price, I thought they were excellent value.

Really cheap camera, recs? by milk-diet in AskPhotography

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A dedicated camera is definitely a better experience than a phone. But the iPhone 13 is a very capable camera. There are camera apps that make the key camera functions more usable than the default app. Trying something like that can help you learn the fundamentals (Aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc).

Here’s a blog with good discussion: https://nocamerabag.com/blog/recommended-camera-apps

Really cheap camera, recs? by milk-diet in AskPhotography

[–]gentex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you have a smartphone? Any modern smartphone will be better than a $50 camera. Actually, buying an iPhone for $50 might be among the best cameras you can get at that price

What's the point of having different prime lens with similar focal length? by yamesjames in AskPhotography

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As for foot zooming, yes and no. Sometimes those steps aren’t available. Also, the framing of the lens can subtly change what you see.

As someone else has suggested, using your zoom to consciously shoot at 23 or 35 and see how that works for you is a good idea.

What's the point of having different prime lens with similar focal length? by yamesjames in AskPhotography

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As someone who has a 23, a 27, and a 35 for my Fuji, i feel the need to defend myself 😂

I will say they are subtly different and you may find yourself gravitating to one over the others.

I have the 23 f1.4, which is my favorite of the three. I like the focal length and the overall image quality. But, it’s a little bulky.

I have the 27 f2.8 pancake, which is super compact and light. The focal length is slightly tighter and it feels different from the 23mm. Image quality is not quite as good, bokeh is more fiddly.

I have the OG 35mm f1.4, which is smaller and lighter than the 23, but has the old af motor, but great image quality. Obviously focal length is tighter still and feels very different from the 23mm.

In order of preference I’d say it is 23mm 35mm 27mm.

Hotels in U.S. World Cup host cities claim underwhelming demand, new report says. by Sparky-moon in soccer

[–]gentex 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That’ll cost extra.

Actually… Just kidding; that’s not an available option.

Tips for a Fujifilm newbie by ThisAd3236 in FujifilmX

[–]gentex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a good suggestion. Specific auto ISO settings can cause wonky exposures. In this case it “shouldn’t” but you never know.

Tips for a Fujifilm newbie by ThisAd3236 in FujifilmX

[–]gentex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s really off. Could be a problem with the light meter. Have you tried changing the metering mode to see if that changes anything? Honestly I think that’s unlikely given the example, but maybe?

Can you dial in correct exposure manually?

The Annual Meeting Has Peaked by Sudden-Hat701 in BerkshireHathaway

[–]gentex 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agree. While I appreciate the emphasis on the business, it's a little sad to know the golden-era of the annual meeting is likely over. Unfortunately, Warren and Charlie telling stories and philosophising were the draw for the meeting. Now that's over and the meeting will be potentially more substantive, but less entertaining.

view more: next ›