@HerrWillhelm @MalwareTechBlog If it's liquid equity that's a public company, most don't go belly up in 1-3 years, but of course it does happen.
The other hazards are more immediate, that you may not get to full or partial vesting or the stock may just perform poorly (even if not belly up).

@HerrWillhelm @MalwareTechBlog 如果流动股权是一家上市公司，大多数公司不会在 1-3 年内破产，但它当然会发生。
其他危害更为直接，您可能无法获得全部或部分归属，或者股票可能表现不佳（即使没有倒闭）。

@histoftech Pretty close. It was an A/C advert emphasizing the importance of not having your A/C fail.

@histoftech 非常接近。这是一则空调广告，强调不要让您的空调出现故障的重要性。

@pycoa_fr @LinuxHandbook Close, it was an advert for air conditioning.

@pycoa_fr @LinuxHandbook 关闭，这是空调广告。

@VGrubsky @taipan168 Local prevalence varies by orders of magnitude which is the primary determinant of deaths and dwarfs any particular individual's protective effect from a mask. Masks probably influence the former but in a complicated way and conflated with a large number of other factors.

@VGrubsky @taipan168 当地流行率按数量级变化，这是死亡的主要决定因素，使任何特定个体的口罩保护作用相形见绌。口罩可能会影响前者，但方式复杂，并与大量其他因素混为一谈。

@EricRichards22 This is mostly senior level people donating. For the reason you stated but also because it excludes donations <$200. Read the fine print.

@EricRichards22 这主要是高级人员捐赠。出于您所说的原因，还因为它不包括捐赠

@Vecna7777 @asemota @naval This is completely false. It was 10-20x worse than flu in terms of fatality rate (plus much more contagious) and it takes decades for a million people to die in car accidents.

@Vecna7777 @asemota @naval 这完全是错误的。就死亡率而言（加上更具传染性），它比流感严重 10 到 20 倍，100 万人死于车祸需要几十年的时间。

@TrollTrace5 @asemota @naval There was inflation long before the war, but supply chain is harder to disprove as a cause.

@TrollTrace5 @asemota @naval 早在战前就有通货膨胀，但供应链更难被证明是一个原因。

@jayeskenazi @TaylorLorenz @HaileyLennonBTC @naval @LuggageDonkey Mask mandates in healthcare and long term care led to fiscal stimulus which led to inflation which led to tightening and recession.
Stop being absurd.

@jayeskenazi @TaylorLorenz @HaileyLennonBTC @naval @LuggageDonkey 医疗保健和长期护理中的面具任务导致财政刺激，导致通货膨胀，导致紧缩和衰退。
别再荒谬了。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald I don't see any evidence this is using fiscal years. Do you?
Also, the home ownership rate is higher in 2022 than it was in 2019, and increased from Q1 to Q2. So there is no evidence of investors pushing out owners.
https://www.census.gov/housing...

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 我没有看到任何证据表明这是使用财政年度。你？
此外，2022 年的房屋拥有率高于 2019 年，并且从第一季度到第二季度有所增加。因此，没有证据表明投资者会驱逐所有者。
https://www.census.gov/housing...

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Also, if someone who would transition from renter to owner doesn't, and someone else buys the property and rents it, there is no net change in the market. On the margin, one more renter, one more rental unit. That doesn't create a shortage.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 另外，如果从承租人转变为所有者的人不这样做，而其他人购买并出租该物业，则市场没有净变化。在边际上，多了一个租客，多了一个出租单元。这不会造成短缺。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Plenty of individual buyers paid 20% over asking too (I know some). That's the nature of a stock market bubble, crypto bubble, and near-0% interest rates. You can't attribute market dynamics to one or the other.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 很多个人买家也支付了超过要求的 20%（我知道一些）。这就是股市泡沫、加密泡沫和接近 0% 的利率的本质。您不能将市场动态归因于其中之一。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald It's Q2 which is June not April.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 这是六月而不是四月的第二季度。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Being able to raise rent is a huge selling point BECAUSE THERE IS A HUGE SHORTAGE OF RENTAL PROPERTIES.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 能够提高租金是一个巨大的卖点，因为出租物业严重短缺。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Most likely both, particularly if you're building a mix of single family and multifamily units, which is what is needed most places.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 很可能两者兼而有之，特别是如果您正在建造单户和多户单元的组合，这是大多数地方所需要的。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald No, it's still low. That chart goes basically to the present. Way below 2019.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 不，它仍然很低。这张图表基本上一直到现在。远低于 2019 年。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald But again, it's a distraction. Say you could hypothetically eliminate all the middlemen (not just corps but also the wealthy individuals who do the same thing) and remove all profit margin. You'd probably improve affordability by just a small %. Building is the real answer.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 但同样，这让人分心。假设您可以假设消除所有中间商（不仅是公司，还包括做同样事情的富人）并消除所有利润率。您可能只会将可负担性提高一小部分。建筑是真正的答案。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Liquidity for one thing. If you're the one trying to sell for whatever important reasons (say needing to relocate, etc.), you'd probably appreciate that. Making more rentals available to people can't or don't want to own for another.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 流动性一方面。如果您是出于任何重要原因（例如需要搬迁等）而试图出售的人，您可能会很感激。向不能或不想为他人拥有的人提供更多租金。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Who will build them? I'm going to go with builders, same as ever. If they weren't impeded by a thicket of regulations (zoning, permitting, etc.) making it more difficult and much costlier to build in the places with the least affordable and accessible markets.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 谁来建造它们？我要和建设者一起去，和以前一样。如果他们没有受到一大堆法规（分区、许可等）的阻碍，那么在负担得起和进入市场最少的地方建造会变得更加困难和成本更高。

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald Vacant units. Low by historical standards. Nothing unusual here.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 空置单位。以历史标准来看是低的。这里没有什么不寻常的。
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald The 1 million people isn't that significant. If it were 1 million households, that would still be <1%, but it isn't because many of the people who died didn't live alone.

@snarkyjarky @xpartycoalition @denise_dewald 100 万人并不重要。如果是100万个家庭，那仍然是