Want to spruce up the skirts on some of your used and abused trolling lures or just change them up to that hot color for the season? The Fathom OC replacement lure skirts by Ocean Lure Concepts are made by hand in the USA using the highest quality materials available including UV inhibitors, strength catalysts, and color enhancers. With various sizes to fit all of your trolling lures and every color combination from mild to wild and anything in between, you will be sure to find an OC replacement skirt to help add some color to your spread!
Great glow in the dark feature. Looks great under a darker colored skirt for any type of trolling lure.
Skirt works well with larger lure heads. I mainly use these for my high speed wahoo lures.
Just a few 8" skirts but these were the only people who had solid black. Good communication and quick delivery.


text:
Talking Tech, Politics, Policy, and More with Keith Rabois (Transcript 1/18/17)
As we have done in the past before, Keith Rabois made time to share his thoughts on how tech and society at large may be altered with the new Administration which assumed office this week. While I don't always agree with Keith, having read his perspectives for years now, he is more often right about things and quite frequently. We also share a personal interest in observing politics (from different sides of the spectrum), so we got together a day before the inauguration and recorded a conversation on a range of topics. Below is an edited, partial transcript of our discussion. The opinions expressed here belong to each individual only.
Introduction and Personal Biases
@semil: Keith has always been great at making time. So, let's see January 18th, two days before the inauguration.
@rabois: It's crazy. Isn't it?
@semil: It's crazy. I wanted to dive into a lot of topics. As brief context, you were an early supporter of Ted Cruz. You were classmate to Ted Cruz.
@rabois: I actually I didn't support Ted. I was a classmate in law school. Actually, technically a supporter of Scott Walker, which shows how well our predictions and endorsements, how far they go. But, I didn't endorse anybody after that.
@semil: Got it. I want to be clear about my biases too. This is difficult topic for many people. From my point of view, my bias is that I would've wanted the Democrats to win. But I completely understand how this happened and we'll try as best as we can to take an apolitical approach here and focus more on analysis.
On Retaliation Toward Tech
@semil: The number one thing to kick off with, and you mentioned this in the conversation you had with Emily Chang (on Bloomberg) a little bit: given the personality of the new Commander-in-chief – and this sort of harkens back to how Nixon was – and given the tenor of the attack from, let's say, Silicon Valley/tech and entrepreneurship – that includes investors, executives, founders – should people be on alert for some type of retribution or some type of retaliation?
@rabois: Most of the large companies post the election results have changed their tenor, changed their attitude. They are trying to dial back the ledge that they walked over. I think it is very difficult as a public and traded company to take up a partisan position, and most mature industries don't in fact. For example, Wall Street gives lots of money to Democrats. Wall Street doesn't probably love the fact that Democrats tend to regulate Wall Street and, all of a sudden to deregulate it, but they are very careful to not to get themselves in the middle of the bull's eye. And I think Silicon Valley, being kind of a newish, more recent power, hasn't realized the consequences of being wrong, and being partisan.
@semil: At a time when we have Twitter, Facebook, and everything is now semi-public.
@rabois: The contributions were public and have been public for a long time, but the attitude of employees, the bigger… the "___ Trump" homepage. You just can't do stuff like that and not pay consequences when the other party particularly controls both sides – in the Congress, House, Senate and the President – and so everybody is reacting from Jeff Bezos to Eric Schmidt. They are all trying to become friends.
On Peter Thiel
@rabois: One of my friends said to me that, in many ways, Peter Thiel saved technology, because had Peter not been a Trump supporter, and had he not shown that there is at least some diversity of views in Silicon Valley about politics, I think the desire, the President being somewhat vindictive just from purely public statements and attitudes, and the traditional views of the Republican party, I think given the contribution level, given the expressed outrage, absent Peter's intervention, I think technology would have a real problem right now.
@semil: And do you think Peter is like a bridge?
@rabois: Well, he's up on the bridge as you saw sort of famously with this tech meeting that Recode has been covering substantially and vigorously. But, the reality is there's very few people in technology with access to what would seem to be the President of the United States. Most companies want that access. The larger the company, the more they want the access across multiple verticals: financial services, healthcare obviously.
Peter made one of the great asymmetric bets in history. If you think about this from a classic, venture, startup perspective; everybody thought he was crazy and wrong and it turned out he was right. That's a good incentive and accumulates to a lot of money, accumulate to a lot of power. This is actually a metaphor for what happened. I occasionally get accused of being part of the PayPal mafia, and people sometimes forget the history of PayPal. All the people that worked at PayPal were complete misfits and had no establishment contacts to Silicon Valley whatsoever. Yet in about from five years from 2002 to 2007, we went to become central casting in Silicon Valley, and almost accused of being the establishment. What happened was in 2003, 2004, 2005, nobody thought that there was another wave of technology innovation coming, because there was a nuclear winter in Silicon Valley, and particularly on the consumer side.
All founders who needed money sort of gravitated to Peter, Reid Hoffman, and to some extent, Sequoia and people like me, and it turns out there was another way. Some of our best turned out to be pretty good. We moved from outliers to central sort of central force in two to three years.
Peter's bet on Trump has made him from an outlier in politics to a very central force in politics overnight. Now, he has to decide how to use that, how to leverage that, and see what happens. But it could have the same dynamic where Peter becomes a top one, two, three, four, player in politics just like he has been in technology.
@semil: Do you see him having ambitions on an elected official basis or on a more appointed position basis?
@rabois: I think he cares about influencing specific policies, and the question will be can he do that from afar or not. A lot of people have the desire to do that from afar for lots of great reasons. It's very, very, difficult to do that. In practice, it doesn't work so well.
When you become President of the United States, there are so many bubbles that get created around you. Some of it's security bubbles, some of it's a political bubble where people try to crowd out other people. So, it's really difficult to influence the President from afar.
So, I think at some point he may have to think about taking a more active role. For now, I suspect he'll try to influence from afar and by placing the right people in the right places.
Fighting Words From Tech Incumbents vs Tech CEOs
@semil: Do you think there's a difference when it comes to talking publicly about politics between the Bezos', Eric Schmidts of the world, or sort of large tech incumbents versus the startups and the VCs that back them?
@rabois: Startups can clearly be more reckless. I mean, startups are like Pirates, and the Apples and Googles are like the Navy. For startups, nobody really cares, for the most part, what the attitudes of the founders are and whether they endorse a particular candidate. But as a publicly-traded entity, you just can't be partisan and expect to be a publicly-traded entity. You have shareholders.
Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook actually handled it very well when there was alleged controversy around Peter. He said, "Look we want to be a company that has a product that is used by billions of people. If we are going to be used by literally billions of people, we can't alienate half of the United States. That makes no sense whatsoever." So, I think he and Facebook probably navigated a very complicated morass quite well.
On The Tech Sector as a "Boogeyman"
@semil: I've read this narrative– I personally disagree with it, but I wanted to get your view which is, "The tech industry, either at large, or the startup industry – since there's such a concentration of wealth here – will turn into kind of a bogeyman or a target as well." I tend to think of tech as more aspirational and people use the product and services on a daily basis, but do you think that that negative narrative could increase or grow during a new administration?
@rabois: It could, but I don't really believe in the narrative. The evidence is against the narrative. For example, when I travel back to high school where I grew up, which is very far removed from technology, people really want to be in technology and are really interested in what I do, and how to find routes for actually now outpace their kids, which is a little embarrassing of using in technology. I'm dating myself badly here. Secondarily, I've seen public studies of sort of different industry reputations, and tech is always the number one or two most highly-regarded industry in the world. So, it depends compared to what? And tech is not perfect. Tech has lots of flaws. But when you compare human endeavors to other human endeavors, to other human endeavors, tech stocks up by any metric quite well.
On Entrepreneurial Responses To A Trump Administration
@semil: Do you think that there's any room or place or… requirement isn't the right word, but obligation for entrepreneurs or companies to either be part of the next wave coming up, or building products and services to either amplify or combat policy that they don't like?
@rabois: Absolutely. One of the things that we do here at Khosla Ventures is we filter all our investments by impact. There are lots of things that can make money that we don't invest in, or aren't interested in, and then when we find something that we think has potential high impact on society, in a positive direction, we are more likely to invest. So, it's absolutely the right and positive thing for people to build companies that are sort of the change they want to see in the world. I think it's also… one interesting thing about Trump winning is I think it will encourage more political behavior, more activity by non-professional politicians. So, I think more Silicon Valley people may run for office, more technology entrepreneurs may run for office, because it's now established that it's at least possible for someone who hasn't spent his or her life in politics to be extremely successful. I think that will encourage more people to run for different levels of office – whether it's the House, the Senate, the Governor or President – and I think that's a great thing, to have more talented people, from more diverse set of backgrounds, running for office than 40 years in politics.
On Fake News
@semil: What's your point of view on the fake news debate? There's a debate around Facebook and news, and then just generally around filter bubbles. And what could entrepreneurs do to fix that if it is a problem? One of the issues I am finding is we think of incumbent companies as "you can disrupt them." The issue with the incumbent companies that are built on top of the Internet or mobile networks is the network effects kick in, and they seemingly get stronger, and you have the founders either in control or close by. So, what can people do? Clearly we have free will to pick and choose where we get our media from, but that's probably not the case of where people are going.
@rabois: I'm skeptical about this fake news debate for two reasons: One, I've seen no evidence that any voters in the United States are less informed than they were in any prior election in the American history. I'd like to see some comparative data that shows there's been some decline in knowledge about the world, knowledge about policies, knowledge about candidates, and there's none of that evidence. Two, I think that this is mostly the last gasp of the traditional media trying to reinsert themselves as a gatekeeper. Basically, what the Internet does classically across all industries is it eliminates gatekeepers, and you eliminate gatekeepers and get a wider array of opinions. Some of those opinions actually may thrive, that the gatekeepers would have filtered.
Naval [Ravikant] posted quite elegantly about this. I have read all the Startup Boy blogs about politics – they are incredible – and so I think that's just one of the bigger drivers, the people complaining about fake news or all mass media types, not normal people. Then, the third is I think it's a hard problem. I think you can discriminate between hoaxes and what I'd call hyper-partisan behavior.
Hoaxes are easier to filter, easier to eliminate, although people still buy the National Enquirer. There's demand. That's another point, that throughout history, the National Enquirer has been publishing fake news, hoaxes, for decades and it's sort of unpopular.
We've had wars based upon fake news intentionally. If you take the American history, you learn about the Spanish-American War and how the first newspaper publication sort of manufactured the conflict. So, this is nothing new as far as I am concerned, but I think there is a way to eliminate intentional hoaxes versus my interpretation of facts that leads me to a conclusion, that may or may not be "true." I think that is a problem and technology companies want to stop that.
On Deregulation
@semil: Do you expect deregulation and do you expect it in a couple of industries, or literally are we looking at all of them and thinking about them?
@rabois: I'm a conservative. I would wish we would deregulate and relook at regulations across all industries. I doubt that will happen. I think it will be concentrated in a couple of verticals mostly driven by a very senior leader in the government who wants to take on the agenda in that vertical. I think it's generally good for startups. Startup's thrive on chaos, unpredictability, and flux in the system. And so when you do regulate something, it creates a lot of uncertainty, which maybe be bad for society, or difficult for society at large – and incumbents have challenges with that – but it's a great opportunity for a new company to take advantages of the tectonic plates shifting.
On Reexamining Everything With Fresh Eyes
@semil: It seems like the incoming administration's brand is to say "unconventional rule-breaking got us here," and so it is probably a license to look at everything with fresh eyes.
@rabois: I think there is a license to look at things with fresh eyes and you can see some of the appointments the administration is making clearly reflect that. Some are a little bit more traditional.
@semil: Any ones that you would mark as traditional versus like a revisiting?
@rabois: Well I think the… for better or for worse, the Secretary of Education, the Administrator of the EPA, are examples of an attempt energy, possibly, examples to rethink from first principles, which will be interesting to see how that plays out I suspect the SEC is a pretty traditional appointee. So, it varies. I think in foreign policy, nobody really knows. I think there's conflict among several of the senior people that are on the foreign policy team. So, how that plays out and how…
@semil: That will be a Netflix show.
@rabois: Yeah, and how the president arbitrates those disputes because they have very different views. I just was watching the new UN ambassador's testimony this morning, which in my opinion is perfect and awesome, but she disagrees with several other people, including the President, on several things. So, that would be an interesting sort of administration to watch.
I think it's healthy that he has hired effectively a diverse set of views. So, take Russia for example. Lots of people on his staff think Russia is evil. Other people think Russia is a great ally and should be trusted, and will be a great counterweight to China.
Those are pretty different views, and I think it's a smart thing to have a divergent set of views in the Cabinet, but someone is ultimately going to have to make a decision because the rubber will meet the road at the policy level at some point.
On Impact of Social Media on Domestic & Foreign Policy
@semil: On this idea or license to rethink from first principles – let's say the EPA or any other agency – what has enabled us to go from within a 40-year period of building up and trusting institutions all the way to today, in what seems like erosion of that trust and a license to question all of that. How did that happen so quickly?
@rabois: Social media has played a lot of a role now, particularly Twitter, in allowing people who want to critique the establishment, giving them a platform and an opportunity to develop an audience, and not have to run through people who have filters. The filters tend to take that stuff out. Filters tend to eliminate critiques of the establishment, and those filters are gone. Whether you use Twitter, or whether you use Facebook, or whether you use Reddit, which are really the three major choices. All of those have a lot of people with new ideas, new data, to publish "them" and distribute them, and attract a following, and that changes the debate.
You're going to see this for better or for worse. I think in some areas it will turn out really well, that we've rethought policies from the first principle. For example, two of my own pet peeves, I have never thought the One China policy makes any sense. However, the foreign policy establishment within the United States has made it impossible for 40 years to revisit that conversation, and then one day Trump woke up, made a phone call, or returned a phone call, and started tweeting about it. And that's changed 40 to 50 years of American foreign policy, which I think has been for the better. Or two, Trump is proposing to move the US embassy in Israel. That's fundamentally changing the American foreign policy since the mid 1980s, which was the position, and I think that's a good thing from my perspective.
On How This "Change" Will Feel
@rabois: There's a lot of positive examples of rethinking things. The President-Elect is probably more like a bulldozer, and maybe a bulldozer without a refined GPS, and it depends on what you think of the general terrain. If you love the general terrain, he's going to bulldoze over some things people like. If you don't think the general terrain is safe or secure or prosperous, then it's going to be great to have this bulldozer. Because when you bulldoze, who knows what plants are going to emerge? Some of them might be awesome crops. It's going to depend upon your pre-existing views about the general status of the United States, and general policies, whether you like Trump or not.
@semil: And if this wave continues, whether Trump is leading it or not over an eight-year period, the effects of that will be felt like over the rest of everyone's business lifetime who is watching this.
@rabois: Absolutely. The consequences are sometimes hard to tell in the short term. Things that look crazy or wrong in the short term turned out to be brilliant, and things that look smart sometimes look disastrous. The classic example that everybody is familiar with is, the government gives us all this advice about what food to eat. It's basically been wrong for 30 or 40 years, and had you ignored the government's advice on food, you'd probably be better off, than worse off. That's why we have all these obese Americans, as people actually listen to the government. Government policy can be terrible for society and it may take 10, 20, 30, 40 years to see that. Sometimes government policy that's wrong at the time, in short term, may look to be brilliant later.
@semil: And it will obviously affect people at different generations, at different times, right? So, it can seem unfair in the beginning and then sort of, in some cases, gets better or worse overtime.
On Healthcare
@rabois: [Healthcare] is a pretty popular topic. Everybody has an opinion on it. But fundamentally, whether you like Obamacare or not, there are some structural problems with healthcare in the United States. Certainly not ideal. They're certainly better things that we can be investing in that will lead to better lifespans, better outcomes for lots of people. At some point, the American people and the American politicians are going to have to address some of the root causes. So whether repealing Obamacare makes things worse in the short term is part of the question because, obviously, people care about their health care. But the question is: What happens in 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, 10 years? If things got worse for 2 years, but we are fundamentally on a solid plane for the rest of my life, that might be better.
So, there's these short-term and long-term trade-offs, and then you layer that all out in politics, which is there are voters who care more about different time dimensions.
@semil: And the branding of what policies are in place.
@rabois: Yeah. Exactly. So, there's multiple variables.
Obamacare and Replacements
@semil: In the immediate term, to get micro for a second, what do you think the Congress will do in terms of the desire to, let's say, "repeal Obamacare", but then have something in place? What will happen with that?
@rabois: Well, I think they are kind of stuck in this crazy box, which is a function of procedural rules, as I was kind of Tweeting about a couple of weeks ago. It's easy to repeal Obamacare because there's a way to do that with only 51 votes in the Senate, and there's not a way to create a new Obamacare. A replacement with only 50 votes, you need probably 60. So, the structural desire to repeal and replace almost can't be done in one step, which creates this perversity of the only structural way, like procedural way, to do this is may be to have to do a repeal first, without being able to replace technically. But the uncertainty of that to people, to the market, may be too dramatic for people to handle, so the Republicans may need to rethink how to do that, and how to do something that could get 60 votes, or somehow survive a filibuster at the Senate. It's a very complicated challenge there, because of the filibuster rule that's still possible.
On Immigration
@semil: Let's move on to probably the most emotionally-contested issue, which I would say is around immigration. Obviously, in the campaign, a lot of stuff was said that is frankly crazy and scared a lot of people. What are we going to see now with Sessions in place? What should people expect? Will it be more along the lines of people wanting to follow rule of law and saying like everyone needs to be through a system? Or could it go over into another extreme?
@rabois: I have a counter-intuitive sort of point of view on this – is I actually think that for skilled workers, H1B, traditional immigrants, it's going to get easier and not harder. Then for unskilled workers, it's going to get harder and not easier.
@semil: Which is what happens in a lot of other advanced countries.
@rabois: Actually…right. There's also a logic to that. President Obama, for his own political reasons, linked the two together, and that's why the term was called Comprehensive Immigration Reform. And his base, the Democrats in power, would not allow any of liberalization of H1B visas without linking it to unskilled labor, particularly from Mexico. So, he insisted it's all or nothing, and that's why he got close to it. He actually got close to getting all, but wind up with nothing because of that insistence on linking the two things.
Republicans are going to delink those two things. They've always had the votes. The Republicans in DC have always had the votes to liberalize H1B visas and there's a lot of Democrats who would support that. I think it's possible that we see America becomes a shining city on a hill, where if you are talented and you have degrees, technical degrees particularly, it's easier to get into United States legally, but otherwise it's going to become more difficult.
Even Trump in some comments made his point, which is it is insane that we allow people to come here to get graduate degrees at Stanford, down the street, in CS, in Electrical Engineering, and then we kick them out of the country. That makes no sense whatsoever.
@semil: Should we expect a likelihood that the INS is one of the places that's going to be rethought.
@rabois: Agencies have different latitudes set by the Congress of filling in the gaps. It's not clear to me that the INS has a lot of latitude, versus like the Department of Justice, versus the President, and versus the Congress. A lot of these caps are set by congressional action. So, some agencies, like the SEC, famously has incredible discretion. Insider trading has never been defined by the Congress. So, the SEC gets to try to define it, subject it to a lot of court review, but they've been given a wide latitude to do what they want. Whereas the INS, I don't think has nearly as much latitude.
@semil: So in terms of potential financial regulation, the SEC may have more powers vis-a-vis Congress and the executive branch, but when it comes to immigration, it's actually flipped ?
@rabois: I think it's been flipped. Obama has done a lot by executive action. Conservatives, at least, have been very critical of that. So, how that plays out in the Trump administration, whether Conservatives or Republicans support the use of executive action, which they had been very critical of, if they are not hypocritical, they really shouldn't be having the President set immigration policy directly.
New Administration and The Media
@semil: Let's look at the new Administration's relationship with the press at large. So, traditional incumbent media and sort of the BuzzFeeds of the world, and the next BuzzFeed. The Cheddars of the world…
@rabois: I don't have that much to add to it, we need to see it play out. It's very clear that the President understands that the media is not necessarily his friend, and I think the more disruptive you are as a President, the more adversarial the media is going to be, particularly if you're Conservative. I mean, there's lots of studies that show how biased the people who go into mainstream media are, and they cover things disproportionately from a Democratic perspective, but it does appear very clearly that Trump is not going to take this like sitting down. He's going to punch back. I think one of the things that fueled the rise of Trump was actually more Conservative people saying, "We want someone to punch back for us because nobody is supporting us. Nobody is defending us against attacks from the liberal media." The best articulation of this that I read in summer of 2015, not '16, was in the Atlantic of all places. And Trump has the personality to be a fighter, and he's going to push back on the people that are critiquing him, and that no one knows how it's going to play out.
@semil: And he has nothing to lose now.
@rabois: Well, he does. I mean, as you become President, you have social capital, like your political capital. As you expend political capital, it may get depleted. Now if you expend it wisely, it may get increased just like social capital does. So, it's not like he has some inherent, unalienable ability to do this. It depends on how he uses it, against who does he use it. Lady Thatcher had a bit of this dynamic. She's obviously very different from Donald Trump, but in many ways, her relationship with a lot of the media in the UK was similar, and her willingness to ignore the media, or push back on the media, was roughly comparable, at least the closest proxy I can think of in my lifetime among the major democratically-elected leaders.
On NATO and Foreign Entanglements
@semil: Regarding foreign policy: One of the things that's being rethought from first principles is NATO, and other entanglements or obligations that the country has. What should we expect vis-a-vis NATO and in Europe? How could that play out and what are the potential upsides of that and also the potential risks?
@rabois: I do you think you see a distancing of the US from continental Europe. It depends a little bit on the election. So, France is going through a major election this year where it is possible that a true Conservative, Reaganist kind of a Republican-type person gets elected, which will radically shift French politics. So, that might create a realignment. Germany is going to go through an election that's going to be quite contentious.
@semil: Europe also seems to have a lot of structural economic issues that have been sitting there for years.
@rabois: They have been simmering and the EU has masked some of this. They have structural economic issues. Nobody in Europe basically grows. None of those economies grow.
@semil: They have huge unemployment.
@rabois: Yes, unemployment particularly among [young] people. Then you have this immigration and the associated risk of terrorism, and things like that, and insecurity. Then you have in some parts of Europe a vibrant anti-Semitism that has to be confronted as well.
So, you have serious fundamental problems. It's not an easy job for anybody. Generally, European economies are heavily-regulated, heavily-taxed. A lot of growth in that dynamic where people are unemployed, and there's a lot of union power, at least in some of the markets. It's going to be very challenging. And so I expect a distancing of the US from Europe as they sort out the mess, and the countries in Europe sort out their messes in the US-favorable way, which France probably will. Who knows what happens in Germany? That might lead to some shuffling of the deck. I think our relationship in the UK are probably pretty strong, and so hard to tell how this plays out.
On Globalization's Future
@semil: Does globalization continue to thrive in the same way it has?
@rabois: No. One of the things that people got wrong is everybody assumed it would. This is a classic Peter Thielen point, and I certainly wasn't aware of this either. Everybody for the last decade or so assumed that we are in this inexorable trend towards globalization, and it looks like that may be false. Everybody just assumed the world is increasingly interdependent, increasingly globalized. There's just one arc of history and that's where we are going. For the last 15 years. Almost nobody would take the opposite view. It's only about the last two years that many people, from economic commentators to conservative leaders, to liberal leaders, like very left-wing leaders, have been taking that view, and it's seems like there's a trend against globalization and interdependence. That may be one of the bigger mistakes in history. I think Peter got it right. I think Peter picked up on this a long time ago, but I don't know too many people that are arguing this more than six to nine months ago.
@semil: If you're right in that started a reverse or sort of unravel two years ago, what do the next 5 or 10 years look like if that pace continues?
@rabois: I think it's somewhat contrary in perspective. I think it depends upon old school factors, like what's the natural resources that are particular to our economy. So, countries that have a lot of self-resiliency and potential self-resiliency may do fine. Countries that depend upon an intricate wave of networking and trade may suffer a bit. But generally, globalization has been good. If you believe in comparative advantage and all these things you learn in ECON 101, globalization is good for everybody. I think that's mostly right. But moving towards a homogeneous future is clearly going to be wrong.
@semil: When you combine the pace of globalization that went on plus the shifting value to knowledge work, and work with certain types of machines, it left a lot of people behind, and those people vote.
@rabois: Those people do vote and it's conflating several things. For example, one can be pretty pro-globalization, and still think China is cheating. You can stitch together different views. For example, I think we should probably be a little bit more tough on China in some of the things they do, but I'm still, generally as a person, pretty globalist. Other powers are clearly is manipulating many markets in attempting to take advantage of power vacuums and we're doing nothing about it.
On World Superpowers
@semil: Are we potentially entering an area of a tripolar world where you have U.S, Russia, China?
@rabois: China definitely. Russia is a debatable proposition. It's not clear that they're an economic superpower. They're a historical power, they're a landmass power, and their population is a power. But it's not clear that they can get in economic competition with anybody – like China and the United States – and produce things of value, at scale, in a way that leads to long-term power.
You can make a case that Russia is playing the political game very well, Putin's playing his chess pieces quite astutely. But today, they have no long-term future on this level.
@semil: That may also be a clue as to where he focuses.
@rabois: Absolutely. As I said, he's playing chess pieces quite astutely. He doesn't have a lot of great chess pieces, but he's playing them better than anybody else at the moment. I'm not sure that Russia can be a superpower, other than by political manipulation. The underlying, fundamental engine of that country just isn't on the same scale in any dimension as the United States or China.
@semil: I'm thinking we might see some aggression.
@rabois: Potentially. What do declining superpowers often do when their economic engine isn't capable of keeping up with the true superpowers? War and aggression is the more classic moods. They also get more and more desperate, and they do things that are riskier.
So, it could be a pretty precarious and dangerous situation, but I just don't think over the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years you can make a case that Russia can keep up with the United States, or China, absent some artificial sort of sweeteners.
On Election Hacking
@semil: Let's talk about this idea, and it leads back to tech that there was interference with the US election 2016. I know that there's been interference across many other elections, historically, but this time it turned into more of a political issue. This has been one of the issues, for me, where I feel like I keep up pretty well with the news, but I can't follow a piece of this. I'm totally lost. I'm waiting for the Wikipedia entry in two years. Walk us through what would you've read and what you think has happened, and what the implications are 1) for the US as a country, in terms of its own cyber security defenses, and also what tech incumbents and startups can do as an opportunity around that?
@rabois: Sure. Cyber security is a great area for technology innovation. We have like three or four companies in our portfolio. The most prominent is called Cylance in LA, doing extremely well.
More and more companies will invest more and more money in protecting themselves against emerging threats. We have an interesting and innovative one called PatternX, it's like artificial intelligence-based. There's going to be a lot of innovation in this area. I mean, it's just a good and costly thing for VCs to invest in. It's a great thing for Silicon Valley to compete on.
The actual election, I have a somewhat nuanced view: to me, this isn't anything new. I think this is what political enemies do, they attempt to influence outcomes in countries they're hostile to. The only difference was the Obama administration, for whatever set of reasons, would never admit that Russia and Putin were potential enemies. They didn't treat Russia like a potential threat, like which Romney and others warned about – Senator Rubio as well – and so they were surprised and shocked that a friend would do something like this.
Whereas if this had been in the middle of the Cold War, nobody would have been surprised or shocked, if using propaganda or other means, the Soviet Union was attempting to influence outcomes here, or vice versa. I mean, we had Radio Free Europe broadcasting into the Soviet Union. Our propaganda, it turned out to be true propaganda, but propaganda.
@semil: My bias is I'm an Obama fan. I can't understand how he didn't inform people. Because it seems like at a certain point, a part of the job is to just inform people of what you're hearing. My calculus is maybe everyone thought Hillary would win.
@rabois: There's probably some truth to the Hillary's-going-to-win kind of attitude, but I think it's more ideological in the sense of not really believing that Russia's the enemy. You saw his famous clip [of Obama] against Romney, which is "The '80s called, they want their foreign policy back." He just doesn't understand at all that there's hostile enemies in the world to the United States. He keeps, across every dimension, repeating every mistake in the Jimmy Carter administration. I saw Senator McCain said that exactly this morning, which is funny because I did Tweeted it a few months ago. I'm glad that he's using my thoughts pulse.
@semil: He's probably got you on his Twitter list.
@rabois: Yeah. He's got my talking plates down.
Obama, for whatever he's done in American domestic policy, and whatever positive examples he's set – I think he set several people will remember for a long time – on foreign policy, unmitigated disaster period. No exceptions.
On Cybersecurity Opportunities
@semil: On cyber security and technology, will we just see a ramp up of vertical security funds, people moving into security, as a new area?
@rabois: I don't know about vertical funds because, as you know, from raising funds and researching that stuff, it's hard to move on a dime. It's hard to create funds from scratch, move, and all of a sudden start being in business. I do think there'll make an emphasis on it.
I've mentioned that one of my goals for this year is to help start or jump start a new company. One area, probably the single area I'm most interested in, is in cyber security and I'm actively working on something in that area right now, and trying to pull together some pieces.
So, I think you'll see a lot of, and I'm not a historically cyber security person, I just think that there's a clear set of opportunities, a clear set of DNA and skills, that should combine together at the right time, the right place, and so I'll apply these. I'll be spending a lot of time personally on that this year. But, I think you'll see a lot of lot that opportunistic investing, opportunist founding.
On Bringing Jobs Back
@semil: I hate using these buzzwords, but I have to. The combination of robotics and automation that drives it are going to take a lot of jobs away. I think this month already, and we're about halfway through, I got three pitches for really talented robotics engineers trying to do something in agriculture, all different models. You could just see it coming. We have really smart people working on it. Part of the campaign that put the new administration in power was sort of on bringing jobs back. That was a marketing message. What's going to be the reality over the next five, 10 years?
@rabois: We're clearly going to be seeing increasing use of robotics in agriculture and in other fields. What's not obvious is what the sort of second-order effects are, with a dynamics system or static analysis, which is just… I mean, you know, Marc Andreessen when he's Tweeting would always Tweet these graphs, which show, at least historically, every time there's been a massive industrial movement it's created more jobs net, than have been sacrificed.
Now, that doesn't mean in a compressed period time, like in the first month or first year. But overall, technology has empowered people and create better and higher-paying jobs through every sort of epic of history. Maybe this is different, maybe it's not. I think you can debate that, but it's not as superficially obvious as, "Tech's going to replace jobs. Hence, there are no jobs. Hence, everybody gets paid less." I think that's probably the wrong narrative.
@semil: You're saying that there'll probably be a transition. There'll probably be new jobs emerging that we don't know of yet, and that in any sort of change, which has been kind of a theme in our conversations, there's going to be a lot of people that don't like it because of the inherent uncertainty in it>
@rabois: It certainly is an interesting dynamic. Fundamentally, when you have uncertainty, you get the worst of all across bridges. You have people who fear the change – because they're happy or satisfied where they are – and yet you don't yet see the benefits. So, there's few supporters and a lot of enemies.
Whereas, let's take a different one that's going to play out probably differently: self-driving cars. Self-driving cars are interesting because people can immediately grok the potential benefits. A lot of times, we see flux in innovation, that the pool of people that see the benefits can realize it, that want it, that demand it, and crave it, is pretty small. So, you have all the old people voting against it and not enough new people.
Self-driving cars. Because 40,000 people die every year. Because driving is a pain in the ass. Because driving is wasted time. All these reasons that causes traffic, and all this stuff. Fundamentally, cars are expensive. Whatever the case is, people don't like their cars and would love to have self-driving cars emerge. A lot of people.
So, there's people on the positive side championing more than you usually see for a type of breakthrough. So I think self-driving cars almost surely do emerge and I think because the regulatory structure where it's possible to innovate in some states, but not all states, get evidence of the decrease in drunk driving, get evidence in the decreasing death. Then, other states will have to keep up once the evidence is clear.
@semil: The argument people use there is if you extrapolate out to different sorts of automobiles, that you'll end up with trucking.
@rabois: Yeah.
@semil: And that turns into a political issue.
@rabois: I think it does because trucking is still very large. I mean, there's this analysis that suggests that in 30 somewhat states trucking is still the largest profession. It seems very counterintuitive to people who live in Silicon Valley, I admit. But 2) I think trucking is right for quick innovation. Whereas there's usually two drivers, I think you will see as one driver, one machine, and that cuts the job. Now, that said trucking is suffering a recruiting shortage at the moment.
@semil: It's one of the toughest jobs.
@rabois: It's a tough job for obvious reasons. But if you look at the new people becoming truckers, it actually has slowed down significantly. So there is like a drivers shortage kind of bubbling up anyway and that may modulate the effects of this transition. Yes, there's a lot of truckers. Yes, some of them will potentially be exposed. But there's not a lot of new people that want to be truckers and so the ability to ship things is dependent upon new truckers emerging, and they're not emerging.
Some Predictions and Democrats' Future
@semil: Okay. Let's move into some more personal predictions. Let's see here. Okay, two-term president barring any health issues. Two-term president.
@rabois: Wow.
@semil: Can the Democrats… I mean, this is a separate question. Can the Democrats find someone to counter in this short period of time?
@rabois: Well, they get a 2-year pass, so you don't really need to know until after 2018. That's a long time politics and the dynamics will be different, and Trump will often run on his record. Right? To some extent, the dynamics of re-election are a little bit different, is you'll have to have at least some key accomplishments. You may have some negatives, but you have to have some key accomplishments. That's something pretty important. Usually, the reelection is mostly a referendum on the current President, not the alternative candidate. That said, the Democrats have an age issue, which occasionally I will re-Tweet about usually, is all the leaders in that party are ancient. When I mean ancient, I mean they're in their 70s or 80s, and it's not clear who the next generation is or could be. Whereas at least on the Republican side, obviously Trump is 74 or whatever he is – or 69 or 70, whatever he is – but most of the leaders in the congressional branch, and the House and Senate, are quite young, like 40s and early 50s. So, there's like a bench.
@semil: If you wind the clock back a year, I think there are few sins in the Democrats, in terms of strategy, but not having a deep bench thought that they could unify very quickly. The problem was they unified around the wrong candidate in that sense. Whereas the Republicans had a very deep bench where people thought it was going to get ripped apart.
@rabois: Yeah. Well, 17 people ran for the Republican nomination. We make fun of them, and lots of people make fun of them now, but on paper, the credentials of the 17 people running were quite impressive. You're talking about Governors from Texas, from New York, from Illinois, from even Michigan, from every like large state you could imagine.
The Republicans had an interesting field. Most who are up and coming, meaning in their 40s and 50s that were running on the Republican side, but it was a pretty vibrant competition. Trump to his credit, and people underestimate this, has managed to destroy the elites in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party at the same time. That's precisely whether you think it's good or bad. It's incredibly oppressive for one person to literally destroy 17 people on the Republican side and then go over into the other party and win too. That's a shocking disruption in some ways. But I think the Democrats have a bench problem. But they have another two years to kind of figure that out. I mean right now, their initial reaction to losing hasn't been incredibly invigorating, but I don't think they're on the clock yet until 2018. In 2018, we'll then start the clock and we'll see what kind of person is the right antidote to Trump. But he's going to have to accomplish some things. Otherwise, almost any Democrat can beat him if he accomplishes nothing.
Most Promising and Most Troubling
@semil: What about for you, what seems the most promising to you in terms of the change that's going to come, and the most troubling? If you had to isolate one on each.
@rabois: The most promising is one or two things that I already sort of alluded to. One is that I feel friends around me who want to get more engaged in politics, maybe actually even be willing to run for office, and I think that's very liberating that people no longer believe that unless they devote their entire life in the time they're 28 to 50, to politics, that they can't run for office. So, I think that's an incredible development that Trump has fueled. The second thing is, I think, rethinking first principles, at least, in some dimensions. There's just sort of a lot of corrosive accumulation of debt, intellectual debt, that sort of accumulated over the years in politics. Trump, for better or for worse, sometimes not even knowing why, is sort of unlocking new thinking and new opportunities there, and some of that might turn out to be a very good thing.
@semil: What's most troubling to you about the change that could come?
@rabois: Well, I think it is a little reckless in some cases. For example; one thing – and a little detail that not anybody will know – is generally when the President of the United States speaks on foreign policy, there's a separate approval process for his or her speeches that it goes through, compared to a domestic policy speech. The whole point of that is to make sure the President doesn't accidentally say the wrong thing. There's, in fact, a different speechwriter that usually works on it, but also there's a speechwriter who is classified with national security clearance, and then there's an approval process that's totally different than when you give a domestic speech. So, it's very easy to make a mistake, like the wrong word, the wrong word translated in the wrong way, causes problems. Clearly, Trump is going to be Tweeting, and so I doubt those Tweets are getting the same level…
@semil: Is that convention or is that law?
@rabois: It's convention, but it's done for… not every convention's bad. Silicon Valley, right? A lot of conventions are bad and dumb, and that's what we get paid for doing.
@semil: Part of the reason I was asking for that clarification is I asked a bunch of friends on Facebook… again, to be clear, I was not voting for Trump, but I was trying to assess during the campaign what things in the campaign did his sort of campaign did that were illegal, and I couldn't find.
@rabois: Yeah, I don't know that.
@semil: All of it was like challenging conventions, right?
@rabois: Yeah. He's challenging convention, but not all convention is bad. I mean, we get paid in Silicon Valley for exposing convention, change of convention. But just like to be reckless to rebuild every part of a company, from scratch, and so in the Valley like none of us would counsel our founders to rethink every part of building a company. I think rethinking everything and changing every convention, and disregarding them all might also be dangerous too, but you want the upside. Even the upside is some of the recklessness leads to revolution, and revolution can be powerful and empowering.
On Carried Interest
@semil: Sort of a nominal issue compared to things we've been talking about. What about this idea around carried interest and what will happen? I don't really follow that.
@rabois: The carried interest debate is fundamentally around whether the carry that VCs get, which is the compensation that's a huge fraction of our job is taxes, long-term capital gains, or regular income. It's historically been taxed as long-term capital gains and that's allegedly fueled the entire industry of venture capital. There has been both Trump and Hillary Clinton brand on campaign that they would eliminate this alleged loophole. It's not really a loophole because it potentially expressed some flaw, but this alleged loophole… and Obama also did nothing about it. And the reason why it becomes problematic is it's also used by a lot of hedge funds the way it's currently drafted, and I don't think venture capital or hedge funds are the same. But so it's unclear or whether there's going to be any change to the law. It's kind of a silly change because the system we have is working. If you just look at venture capital, even if you change the amount of money the federal government would raise is fairly small, because there's not that many venture capitalists, and it does create risk to the venture capital system.
@semil: And most don't even get in the carry.
@rabois: Well, yeah. That's true too, right. Unless you're a successful venture capital investor, you don't get a lot of carry, or any. Unless you're getting carried, it's obviously not taxed. Now, one potential impact is Trump is, at least, allegedly going to lower personal income taxes into the income tax rates. If they get reduced and the capital gains rates stay the same, the spread between the two may get compressed, in which case the difference doesn't matter.
So where all of this policy matters is if there's a big difference between personal income tax rates and long-term capital gains treatment, that obviously creates incentives, and incentives are pretty important to people. But if you harmonize the two or the gap becomes small, then the difference doesn't matter as much. For example; this isn't going to happen, but if Trump implemented a flat tax at 15%, it wouldn't matter what the capital gains rate was because it's going to be the same or below.
In any event, nobody is sure what's going to happen. I think most of Silicon Valley thinks that they can discriminate between hedge funds and venture. I can think of lots of ways to do it, some which have already been proven in law. We went through this era from 2008 to 2012 where small business investments were exempted from federal capital gains treatment, between 25 and 75% exclusion, so there's a precedent for that, when you invest in companies that were worth less than $50 million. So we could live as venture investors pretty easily, if you just exempted investments below, let's say, $100 million of value, qualified them for capital gains treatment, I think everybody could be happy.
On A Trump Bump
@semil: One more market question: Do you expect, like many people, a Trump bump in terms of the economy? I mean, we're already seeing a little bit.
@rabois: Well, the economy's clear. The markets are clearly have not collapsed, which many people predicted would happen. Because of the implicit volatility and unpredictability, usually markets are afraid of that, and you haven't seen any of that. I think the reason why, in so far as I can detect it, is the markets were baking in a lot of increased regulation and micromanagement of the economy by Democrats and Hillary. As soon as that went away, you were discounting by the volatility and potential recklessness of the President, but this overhang of we're going to over-regulate the United States, and overtax the United States, went away as well. So net-net, the markets have been and are actually are pretty positive.
Post-Script, we discuss some non-political topics…
@semil: Let's talk inside-baseball, non-politics, Trump-related. Give us a quick update on OpenDoor.
@rabois: Yeah, so OpenDoor company is growing. It's still rather fast and sometimes shocking that you wake up and there's like over 200 employees that work there. We're going to need to move to like our third office or something crazy like that. Growing the team. We're recruiting very actively. We finally added a CFO, which is nice for a company like ours. Very, very, happy. It's got the opportunity to be one of these incredible companies. We have a lot of work to do, though. The problems only get harder, the challenges get harder, and people align in the team correctly, and figuring out what DNA you need to add. All that stuff gets more challenging as you have more product market, fit not less. So, lots of work to do. Lots of stress to confront, but very optimistic.
On Non-Tech M&A of Startups
@semil: What about this idea that they'll be some kind of bailout for Silicon Valley, from non-tech companies through M&A?
@rabois: You're definitely seeing some of that play out right now where I think there are… just, you know, you talk about asymmetric of these observations is when Andreessen wrote software is going to eat the world. You're seeing that now play out that software is eating every industry. Some of the incumbents are realizing that and saying, "Okay, well how do we buy some software." And some of these incumbents have a lot of money certainly on their balance sheet, or market cap, and so they can leverage some of that even from a defensive perspective, at the level of offense.
On Big Startups Crashing
@rabois: I think that may be a savior for a lot Silicon Valley companies because I think 2017, personally, the first six months is going to be a disaster. I think you're going to see the Pebble story, the Beepi story, the ProductHunt story play out every week.
@semil: There's so many more coming.
@rabois: Oh my God. I think there's going to be literally at least one a week of a high-profile company that absolutely crashes and burns into maybe a talent acquisition kind of style thing. Basically, any high profile company that raised money over two years ago with a high burn rate that hasn't raised since is probably in deep trouble. So, I think that this is going to be a very depressing year in many ways.
@semil: You think there's going to be this kind of weekly drumbeat of, "Oh there's a company that I know or maybe it was a customer of, or had friends that,"…
@rabois: Absolutely.
@semil: …that raised a lot of money.
@rabois: In 2013, 2014, particularly.
@semil: Those stories will compound on each other.
@rabois: There's going got to be at least 50 of those companies out there. I think we've just seen the tip of the iceberg on this.
@semil: If you're right on this, that seems like it would take, in terms of the energy in the ecosystem, or the sort of exuberance, it could last a year.
@rabois: Yeah. I mean, it's a little bit of tale of two cities. You're also going to see Snapchat thriving. You're going to see, as we've talked about, OpenDoor growing. They'll be the companies that have done very well over the last two-three years strike. There's clearly companies with massive momentum that are changing the world and going to continue to thrive. To prove your point about network effects and lock-in, that will only get better. But, I think the companies that have a high burn rate, that couldn't get their marginal cost structure to be correct, and that raised capital at a high price, are in for a very high-speed collision with a wall this year, and particularly the first six months. It takes two or three years to wash this stuff out the system. Because, generally, you raise money that can last for two, three years, but nobody wants to fund those companies. Nobody's looking to fund a broken company at the moment. People all want… and so far as to paying a high price, or spending a lot of dollars, they want a high upside, high growth, high potential company, not something that might have missed its window.
On Non-Tech M&A Trends
@semil: One question for myself is to benefit on that. I haven't been around that long, but it seemed like in the past when venture capitalists would help bridge a connection from one of their portfolio companies – so let's say a local technology company – then I'd say, "Oh well if you're looking for a security solution. Here you go." If we see more non-tech, let's say across the U.S., or even global companies that are not inherently technology companies, finance companies, how can investors add value in helping broker or sort of plant the idea for those types of sales?
@rabois: It may be an interesting point of leverage for venture investors to forge relationships on a sustained basis with large Fortune 500 potential acquirers that are not technology-based, because founders generally won't have that network. We can justify across a wide set of companies and say, put on for example, have what's called the Customer Day by some, put on a slate of let's say 15, 20 of our portfolio companies, have a significant executive presence from Target, or name your favorite non-tech company, come and meet the most interesting companies, see which ones they might want to partner with, invest in or acquire.
@semil: It just seems like even with some of the best VC firms here, their networks necessarily don't expand to the large CPG, or oil and gas.
@rabois: They may hire some people to help with that. In healthcare. So for example, we do a lot of healthcare investing at Khosla, so actually 20, 25% of our portfolio is related to health.
So, we've intentionally spent a lot of time forging relationships with senior leaders in traditional healthcare companies. As you invest in a vertical or a domain, you may want to have your partners or complements to your partners spend a lot of time forging those relationships.
@semil: What are the backgrounds or specs of those types of people that can bridge that gap or help understand that? Because you've got to understand what's happening here, but then they have to have those personal relationships.
@rabois: This is a tricky hire. It's a challenging hire because, fundamentally, what we need is someone who understands that the key strategies for those companies, like the top two or three things. At least, you're not going to spend $600 million on one of our companies, unless it aligns with the CEO's top two or three initiatives. So, someone who has that level of visibility of insight into what are the top challenges for this company or versus that company, and then b) understands technology and the landscape here well enough to be able to identify which companies might fit. So, it is a challenging hire.
There are some people occasionally that have worked at a variety of tech companies and grew up in CPG, or something like that, or vice versa. You can find it, but it's not a natural combination.
What's Over- and Under-Hyped?
@semil: Got it. Okay, so last question, and thank you so much, Keith for your time. Right now what would do you see as the most overhyped thing in tech startups, and the most under-hyped thing?
@rabois: Overhyped. I still think the VR is mostly overhyped. I like AR a little bit more in terms of its use cases and potential adoption. Under-hyped…
@semil: Just expand on that. Do you think VR is overhyped in terms of its time to hit the market or just in general as a consumer?
@rabois: I don't think it's a consumer platform. It's an entertainment device, whereas AR actually can become a consumer platform. The only question is: Is the AR here? This is something we've never thought and haven't thought about yet, but that, to me, is like a no-brainer. Then under-hyped? I'm not really sure mostly because I don't tend to think that way, meaning I'm sort of like a founder-driven investor, so I don't have a lot of micro hypothesis about the world. I generally wait for a founder to walk in and teach me about the world, and so I don't have like, "Oh I would love to find X."
@semil: Let's ask about it and I'm that way too. What are you seeing now. Any trends of founders coming in, let's say, that are under 25? Then maybe, they still haven't sort of… I feel like now we're going to… the people who are 25 and over, they may have started one company, maybe two and there's still some gas in the tank. What about people coming in under 25? Are you seeing any sort of differences in between them?
@rabois: They're interested more interested in healthcare, which is interesting. Three or four years ago when I started investing here, I started investing in healthcare and not everybody was interested like we were doing recruit for our portfolio. There were some people who were interested, but you had to talk to a lot of people that'd be like rejections. "Oh, it's regulated. Blah, blah, blah, blah. There hasn't been any massive companies created for a long time," blah, blah, blah, all these excuses. Now among young founders, there's a lot of interest in healthcare innovation. So, that's great and we like to endorse that. Clearly, they ask about AI, and want to talk about AI, and machine learning, and all that stuff.
@semil: That seems like just now going to be baked into everything.
@rabois: Yeah. that's … my personal opinion is an independent AI based company doesn't make a lot of sense. Not all the partners agree with me. But fundamentally, I think it's a use case. It's powering a specific use case, a specific vertical with AI, where you have proprietary data and access to propriety data, and you have a very specific value proposition that has economic transformation that you're unlocking. I don't believe in a general AI sort of startup, barring, extraordinary circumstances. Then, we have invested in a few, so there are times where there's extraordinary circumstances. But if I was counseling a younger founder in Milwaukee and say I'd stand up and say, "Go find a real problem to solve, and then show me how you're going to use proprietary data and AI to solve that problem in a way that's 10 X better than what people do today," that's a company.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Many of us miss (since the 6 Dec 2017 Update to List Pages) Compact View/Mode for various reasons. I'm going to attempt to list the features I miss. Please comment if I omit something important.
Icon for description/comments of list creator. Mouseover would display those comments. Perhaps click on icon for pop-up edit window.
Ability to Refine and Sort as we have now with View Mode.
Ability to Move To, Copy To, Delete, Save List Order as we have now in Edit Mode.
Thanks for summarizing and posting this.
Yes please bring back this compact mode option. We appreciate your consideration!
Voted and following. This is MOST IMPORTANT.
Yes! Lists--my ability to categorize large numbers of movies for many different purposes, and IMDb's most important feature for me--has become awkward and laborious! Please continue to vote this suggestion up.
1. Compact view should show the number of votes received for my review. I could then easily see which of my reviews had been appreciated and then sort them by that factor.
2. A link to my review.
I know it's shallow but I used to come to this site on a very regular basis to see if anyone new had found my reviews helpful. Now I feel much less incentive to even post a review. And without a compact view showing this, I don't see the need to visit this site daily to review the list. It would be nice to have this back because I felt like part of a community here.
Any update on bringing back this feature?
A MOST important feature removed by IMDb for no reason. It is now impossible to edit/move a filtered list because filtering DOES NOT EXIST in the new appallingly featureless editing view.
ITS BACK! THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK IMDB STAFF!
I don't see Compact View as "back" at all.
I only see Simple view.
What they've done this week is add #1 to custom list views.
They should really call it Simple view, to match the "&mode=simple" parameter in the URL.
IN NO WAY does this feature satisfy the request posted in this thread.
One more little request can you do 250 per page like it is in edit mode? Appreciate it. Also if you could set default views for our lists. Thanks again!
Resubmitting the request to make the compact view 250 titles instead of 100 and be able to change your public default view to compact, detailed or grid. We appreciate the editing page being 250 but would be great if the views could also be 250 as well. Thank you.


Tom Horn 1980 - 98 min. - Color Genre: Western LaserDisc Movie Review: Steve McQueen's penultimate film deals with a fascinating western legend, founded on an insightful script by Thomas McGuane and Bud Shrake. Unfortunately, the film was done in by the five directors ----Don Siegel, Elliot Silverstein, James Guercio, William Wiard, and McQueen himself---- that were, at one point or another, attached to the project. The film deals with the infamous Texas gunslinger Tom Horn. Horn gained fame for a variety of exploits; he served with Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders and was the Pinkerton detective who captured the notorious outlaw Peg Leg Watson. But as Tom Horn begins, something in Horn (Steve McQueen) has snapped. Tom quits the Pinkertons and hires himself out to rancher John Coble (Richard Farnsworth) to assist him in putting an end to his problems with the local homesteaders and rustlers. But Horn performers his job with a chilling intensity, killing so many people with such bloodthirsty rage that it is even too much for Coble and the ranchers to take. When Horn's violence cannot be stopped, Coble has to take the law into his own hands to put a halt to Horn's bloodbath. ---- Paul Brenner Thanks for Visiting DaDon's Rare LaserDiscs ! Reviews, Articles, Newsletter and Information for Movies on LaserDisc LD Laser Disc, LazerDisc.


I imagine that labor is feeling quite wistful about Labor Day 2014. It has been a while since labor, especially organized labor, has had much to celebrate. And the prospects going forward aren't particularly bright.
Real wages for production and non-supervisory workers have declined since the mid-1970s. The share of jobs that are unionized has plummeted back almost to the level it was before 1935 when the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) facilitated a huge increase in unionization. High unemployment has persisted in the jobless recovery. For those fortunate enough to have full time employment, job security is down, and pension and health benefits are shrinking. No trend for labor is positive.
Worse still, it is arguable that its longtime friend in Washington has abandoned traditional labor. Throughout most of the 20th century, labor could count on having the Democratic party squarely in its corner. President Roosevelt rode to the rescue of labor in 1935 with the NLRA to fight back against the corporations who were subjecting labor to hostile, dangerous, insecure and low-paying workplaces. Throughout most of the rest of the 20th century, a Democratic presidential hopeful could not dream of winning the party's nomination without gaining the endorsement of the President of the AFL-CIO – who always had a key speaking role at the Democratic Convention.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party battled on behalf of capital, supporting right-to-work states, deregulating industries, and lowering tax rates. That was the 20th century alignment.
It began to change at the end of the 20th century. A key marker occurred in 1993 when President Bill Clinton signed into law a tax change that allowed only the first $1 million in CEO compensation to be deducted for corporate income tax purposes. It was supposed to discourage corporations from paying their CEOs more than what was then thought to be an excessive $1 million (imagine that!) – and failed spectacularly as they were given stock options instead, which made them wealthier than ever before.
But in whose favor was this measure intended? Labor? Hardly. There was no obvious benefit to them. Capital? Yes indeed. Shareholders were complaining about CEOs demanding ever-higher compensation – and the Democrats responded to help capital reign in CEO talent. Arguably the attention to the needs of capital has continued in the Obama administration. This administration featured enthusiastic embrace of the TARP bailouts of banks that protected their shareholders first and foremost and the continued low interest policies that favor capital owners. Of course, the argument can be made that these policies help labor too, by avoiding a recession/depression. But the careful attention to capital first is a relatively new behavior for the Democrats.
Republicans have also defended private equity investment managers in maintaining the favorable capital gains treatment that their carried interest fees are accorded by the tax system. While hedge fund managers and the like are often seen as representatives of capital, in fact they ought to be considered high-end talent: their investor-customers are in fact the representatives of capital. The GOP even went as far as putting forward a card-carrying member of the high-end talent class, ex-strategy consultant and private equity manager Mitt Romney, as its Presidential candidate in 2012.
So in the modern economy, capital has the Democratic Party as its friend and high-end talent has the Republican Party as its new BFF. But who wakes up in the morning thinking first of labor, even Monday morning on Labor Day? Arguably it is no one. Labor is on its own politically in America in the 21st century – and that can't feel too comforting.
Editor's note: This post has been updated to reflect that Bill Clinton's tax law was signed in 1993, not in 1992. We regret the error, and thank the reader who pointed it out.


This entry was posted in Game Play and tagged AAR, Friendly Fire, German, Hong Kong, PBEM, Polish, scenarios, VASL, wargamer, Wargaming. Bookmark the permalink.
nice AAR. I live in japan, japan time and your hongkong time is nearly.VASSAL onlinegame I want to play your game.
Thanks mate, unfortunately I have 11 concurrent games at the moment and I cannot take anymore. Perhaps when some of this lightens up.
Hello Christian .. years ago I was using an IOS (iPad) program called ComicBook!, now I am using one called Comic Life 3.
ComicBook! has stock graphics and stuff that are more fun. Comic Life 3 presents more flexibility.


CEDA's interns from Kathmandu Engineering College Anisha Kunwar, Sonal Shrestha and Aayush Shrestha presented their professional work among CEDA's architecture team on 11 March 2018. Students pursuing architecture under Institute of Engineering are mandated to spend at least 90 working days in architectural and engineering firms to learn about professional practice in Year IV Part I of Bachelor in Architecture. To CEDA, mentoring interns has been a tradition for over a decade. Currently, CEDA has five interns; two from Pulchowk Campus and three from Kathmandu Engineering College.
All the three interns have worked on various projects ranging from residential to commercial, institutional, interiors, and landscaping, among others. They were also involved in preparing measure drawings of existing sites and design development of projects from inception. They have also assisted senior architects in large scale projects such as Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, White House College, Siddhartha Bank, Lemon Tree, Serai Chuli, etc. They were quite enthusiastic in learning design tools such as Photoshop, V Ray, Lumen, Revit, and others.
The informal presentation was organized so as to familiarize the senior architects with interns' progress, and give feedback that will help them in front of jury in the final presentation.
We wish our interns best for their future endeavours.


Garden Log 3-10-08: The Robins Return!
While there isn't much to look at or write about out in the garden these days, things are slowly beginning to show promise of some spring-like changes!
Daylight Savings Time is now in effect, the temperatures are growing slightly warmer, and last week witnessed the return of the robins from their winter roosts. We could be in store for more snow and cold but at the worst it would be a matter of days or weeks compared to the months of winter that we are emerging from.
I'm always happy to see these early glimpses of spring, but I also feel a little guilt about the fact that I haven't planted a single seed indoors for my spring vegetable transplants. So seed starting is definitely at the top of my to-do list this week.
I'm not alone though… it seems like the plant world is also a little behind the changing weather conditions here in Central PA. Usually gourmet garlic leaves are protruding through the leaf mulch by late February, but it's mid-March and I haven't noticed much new top growth from them yet.
Any Signs of Growth in Your Garden Yet?
Where are those spring bulbs and wild flowers that are usually in a rush to put on a colorful display before winter has officially come to a close? No, there isn't much spring color showing up in my landscape so far.
Even the cold hardy kale, collards, and other over wintered greens in the garden still appear lifeless for the most part, but I know they will start sending out new leaf growth any day now. I also haven't noticed any sign of my perennial herbs poking their heads above the crust of the soil's thawing surface either.
A Welcome Feathered First Sighting!
While the trees and plant life are taking their sweet time to show proof that spring is near, the birds aren't wasting any time whatsoever. I first thought the pair of robins that I sighted last Wednesday were just "early birds," but since then I've spotted more of them just about every day.
The robins seem to have arrived a lot earlier than last spring's first arrivals. I just hope they've timed their migrations correctly because it's a sad sight to watch a robin struggle to locate food and keep warm when there's a layer of snow covering the ground.
Cut back the ornamental grasses, butterfly bushes, etc.
Previous post: Garden Shows Arrive; Can Spring Be Far Behind?


California's solar and wind projects at risk in PG&E bankruptcy?
To begin, California has the most far-reaching renewable energy laws in United States.
In conclusion however and more importantly, the bankruptcy filing Tuesday. None other then by the state's biggest electric utility, PG&E. Therefore major questions are arising about whether California will be able to meet its ambitious targets. Finally and more noteworthy are the targets for solar, wind and other types of green electricity. Especially in the years ahead.


Cleaver, the chicken, burger and rib restaurant brand owned by Prezzo, is to open a further three sites before the end of the year.
The three new restaurants will open in Wokingham, Leatherhead and Oxford before Christmas, taking the Cleaver estate up to four.
Serving a selection of chicken, burgers and ribs as well as three salads and a selection of sides, Cleaver places emphasis on the provenance of its produce.
The restaurant's layout also does away with divisions between the bar, kitchen and seating area to make the cooking a central feature.
Prezzo decided to press forward with the new concept after its trial site, which opened in Cobham in June, was a success.
Will the newly developed Cleaver's in Wokingham be included in the Tastecard Scheme?


San Giuseppe dei Falegnami is a 16th century church above the ancient Mamertine Prison (the prison supposedly held the apostles, Peter and Paul before their execution).
The church was dedicated to Saint Joseph, stepfather of Jesus and was funded by the Confraternity of the Carpenters.
1663 the church was redesigned in opulent Baroque style and in 1886 it underwent another restoration.
On the 30th of August 2018 the church suffered a major blow when the roof collapsed. Much damage was done and until the roof is stabilised and the damage is repaired both inside and out, the church will have to remain closed, probably for many years to come.
In the altar on the left side was a Nativity by Carlo Maratta, dating to 1661.
In the altar on the right side was a Holy Family with Saint Anne by Giuseppe Ghezzi dating from 1695.


text:
San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco, is the financial, cultural, and transportation center of the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of 7.5 million people which includes San Jose and Oakland. The only consolidated city-county in California, it encompasses a land area of about 46.9 square miles (121 km2) on the northern end of the San Francisco Peninsula, giving it a density of about 17,179 people per square mile (6,632 people per km2). It is the most densely settled large city (population greater than 200,000) in the state of California and the second-most densely populated large city in the United States after New York City. San Francisco is the fourth most populous city in California and the 13th most populous city in the United States, with a population of 805,235 as of the 2010 Census. The San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan area has a population of 4,335,391.
I want to go to:


Francia, 783: Haunted by the Saxons' attack on her home fortress, Fastrada obeys her father and marries Charles, king of the Franks and a widower with seven children and an eighth on the way by a concubine. As more wars loom, Fastrada's greatest peril lurks within the castle walls: Pepin, Charles's son by his embittered former wife. Blaming his father for the curse that twisted his spine, Pepin rejects a prize archbishopric and plots with his uncle and mother to seize the throne. Can Fastrada stop the conspiracy before it destroys the kingdom?
Based on historic events during Charlemagne's reign, Queen of the Darkest Hour is the story of a family conflict endangering an entire country—and the price to save it.
Queen of the Darkest Hour is available on Amazon, iBooks, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, and Smashwords.
Want more before you decide? Read first chapter and an excerpt.


Any time you are learning a new skill or working on a new weave structure or making something completely different than what you've done in the past you can expect mistakes. In weaving, at least for me, they all happen or reveal themselves in the first 3 or 4 inches of warp. Well, unless they pop up even earlier.
Part of warping the loom is threading the heddles. Heddles are long thin metal pieces that hang from the harnesses. Each one has a center eye through which you pass a warp thread. They hang from the top rail of the harness and also are attached to the bottom rail of the harness. It sounds straight forward but they are "slippery little devils" as Julia Roberts said in Pretty Woman. OK. She was talking about snails but I'm sure she would agree with me that heddles are just as slippery.
It's easy for heddles to get crossed. They nest with their buddies on or off the harness and don't lay exactly flat when you are trying to arrange them. Once you get them hanging on the top rail it's easy to assume the bottom ends are where they should be so you can slide them onto the bottom rail. Nope. Not necessarily. Each harness may hold over 100 heddles and on an eight harness loom that really adds up. The harness has to be half torn apart to add or remove heddles. It's a royal pain in the bum. The only way to verify that you have no crossed heddles on your loom is to use every one of them. It's pretty much impossible to tell they are crossed until you try to thread them. There was a time when I would very carefully take all the remaining heddles off a harness to get at the crossed ones so I could get them uncrossed.
No more. Now I pull out my trusty wire clippers and cut off the offending heddle. Snip! Snip! And we are fully functional again.
After the heddles are threaded, all the warp ends must go through the reed. It's call slaying the reed. I'm usually pretty good at it and if I do make mistakes I see them fast enough to not have to re-do much of the work. Not this time. I had tied on to the front apron rod, gotten the tension even across the warp and woven the first several inches before I realized I had missed one dent in the reed.
If my warp threads were closer together I could have ignored this but not on this rug warp. My warp threads were set to only 4 per inch so I could easily see the offset. I had to tear out my weaving and fix it.
Fortunately, the error was close to the selvedge so I didn't have to tear out too much.


We've had lots of instances in the past years of chefs laying down their knives and standing to fight Yelp, Yelpers and all things 'user review'. We've had amazing responses from chefs to reviews, one chef who turned his worst reviews into dramatic videos and another who decided to publicly shame two customers who threatened him with bad Yelp reviews.
Now, a production company is looking to raise funds to produce a new documentary called Billion Dollar Bully - promising to look into the multiple claims from restaurant owners of Yelp's bad practices.
The trailer focuses on Yelp's so called filtering of reviews, certain cases in which business owners have tried to sue the company for extortionate behaviour, and lots of chefs who claim that Yelp is operating like some sort of digital mafia.
It's important to note that Yelp has been cleared of all claims against their business practices in court but this doesn't stop chefs speaking out against the company and it seems, at least if funds are raised, the launch of an entire documentary dedicated to investigating the way they operate.
Follow Fine Dining Lovers on Facebook.


text:
5 Answers to the Question: How Do I Know What Golf Club to Use?
June 28, 2018adminImprovement Guides0
Golf season is here, which means it's time to dust off the clubs and get out there. But before you step out on the nicest courses around, you should know which clubs to use in a given situation.
Whether you're a beginner or intermediate golfer, knowing which club to use can help improve your game. But how do you know which one to use?
Check out these five answers to knowing what golf club to use and when.
1. Consider Course Conditions
Before you can get into choosing the right club for your shot, take a minute to consider the conditions on the course. The conditions on the course not only affects how to approach the shot, but also the shot itself.
One of the first things to look out for is the general layout of the course. Playing around obstacles can require different clubs. In addition to this, weather conditions like wind can affect how you take your shot.
2. Measuring Shot Distance
Another point to consider is the distance of your shot. There are two parts to considering your shot distance: the distance of the hole and how far you can personally shoot.
Because golf club distances differ from club to club, taking a minute to consider how far away you are from the hole will affect which club you choose.
Knowing your own limits is another essential part of making a decision. In addition to the club, the correct form is important for maximizing your shot distance and minimizing injuries.
3. Using Drivers and Fairway Woods
Picking the right club to tee off can set the tone for the rest of the game. Drivers were made to help you send the ball far distances. The closer you can land your ball to the pin, the better.
Having a good driver can put you at an advantage when teeing off. The wide face and angle can help you get more lift on your shot.
Fairway woods can help you get some distance if your drive didn't get quite as far as you'd like. While most people will use 3 and 5 wood clubs on the Fairway, newer players may find more success with more lofted clubs like a 7 or 9 wood.
4. Picking Irons and Wedges
Irons and wedges lofted clubs used to help you make pitch shots to get closer to the green. The higher the loft on these clubs, the higher the trajectory you'll get on your shot. Lower lofted clubs like the 3, 4, and 5 iron can help provide more distance.
Meanwhile, wedges can help you hit the ball at higher angles to avoid or escape different sand traps and obstacles. The loft and angle of your clubs directly influence the golf club distances.
5. Investing in Hybrid Golf Clubs
Many golfers are replacing traditional clubs with hybrid clubs to help get some more distance. These clubs offer more accuracy and on the fairway, helping to increase the average golf club distances.
Hybrid clubs' weight and build give them a higher lift and can even help put more spin on the ball for softer landings. While they may not be for everyone, hybrid clubs can help you make the most of every shot.
But keep in mind that good clubs aren't everything. Make having a good swing is just as important as the clubs you use.
Deciding What Golf Club to Use
Understanding what golf club to use and when is an essential part of the sport. Taking the time to understand the differences of each can help you play better.
Check out our blog for more tips and tricks to perfecting your game.
average golfer club distances, golf club distance, golf club distances, golf club yardage


text:
The state representative and longtime community activist spent his last few weeks protecting his constituents against the economic effects of the COVID-19 outbreak, and may have succumbed to the virus himself. All photos: MMCC
Community mourns the loss of Isaac Robinson, a fearless advocate and friend
Posted: Tuesday 03.31.2020 12:06 am Revised: Friday 04.03.2020 12:06 am Hassan Abbas Local
DEARBORN — State Rep. Isaac Robinson (D-Detroit) passed away from a suspected coronavirus infection on Sunday morning at a Detroit hospital. Robinson was beloved and respected by many in the Arab American community in Metro Detroit.
Friends and colleagues called Robinson an advocate ally of working class residents of the Fourth District, which covers neighborhoods in Detroit and Hamtramck. His mother, former State Rep. Rose Mary C. Robinson (D-Detroit), confirmed the news of his illness and death on Sunday night. Robinson succeeded his mother in office.
The tragedy of the 44-year-young state representative is punctuated by the fact that he fought hard for the most vulnerable during the COVID-19 outbreak in Wayne County, pushing hard to secure housing and utility rights as soon as the first cases of the virus were confirmed.
Robinson joined other lawmakers to call for a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures and began working on his own legislation to combat the devastation the pandemic would soon inflict on already-struggling communities in his district. He organized a "Coronavirus Urban Response and Workers Rights" task force that focused on the impact of the virus on workers, small businesses, children, persons with disabilities, seniors and low-income families and shared recommendations with Governor Whitmer.
Robinson was known for his camaraderie and support for the Arab American community. Many young Arab American community advocates and future politicians looked up to him as a friend and mentor.
"I am deeply saddened and shocked to hear about the passing of State Representative Isaac Robinson," said U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit). "Isaac cared deeply for the community and his passion to advocate for our most vulnerable is what I will remember the most.
"Isaac's smile and sense of humor brighten any room. When I first met William Isaac Robinson in 2008 as a young activist in southwest Detroit and candidate for state rep., he was the first to support my work against environmental racism. Isaac always showed up for the community and never backed down from fighting for the people. Our community will not be the same without Rep. Robinson. I pray his mother, Rose Mary, and his family find the strength they need during this difficult time."
Isaac Robinson was beloved among Arab Americans in his district and beyond and was known as a fierce defender of all marginalized groups.
In many ways he provided a voice for a community that didn't have a voice for many years. He was an ally and if you speak to many in the Arab community, they would say Isaac was one of us. — State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud
Abraham Aiyash, a former candidate for state senate and long-time friend, called Robinson an "honorary Arab."
"Isaac had an extremely unique gift in that he dignified people in every possible way he could when he saw them," Aiyash told The Arab American News. "For him, it didn't matter if you were Muslim, Christian, an atheist, if you were Black, Bengali or Arab. If you were human, that was enough for him, and he really lived by that radical (code)."
Aiyash said Robinson was a complicated individual, given to righteous anger when the situation demanded it, and fierce about the principles he stood up for. When the present crisis broke, Robinson went head-first into protecting seniors and those working at minimum-wage jobs who may become sick but cannot take time off. Robinson's mother knew he was sick for some time, but he refused to get tested, even at her insistence.
State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud (D-Dearborn) said Robinson's relationship with the Arab American community was forged over many years of advocacy and community organizational work.
"In many ways he provided a voice for a community that didn't have a voice for many years," Hammoud said. "He was an ally; and if you speak to many in the Arab community, they would say Isaac was one of us.
"Everyone knows he loved the cities that he represented. He loved Detroit, he loved Hamtramck. Whether it was the Yemeni or Bengali community, he was a champion for all people and took on the issues of any oppressed or marginalized community."
Hammoud spoke of Robinson's struggle against large industrial polluters and major corporations that marginalized the working people of his district. These battles landed Robinson into trouble, Hammoud recalled, but of the "good kind." Hammoud said he suspects Robinson inherited his passion from family members, including his mother, who are themselves champions of the same causes.
The Michigan Muslim Community Council (MMCC) expressed its deep sadness, saying Robinson was a dear friend of the Muslim Community.
"He was constantly looking for better ways to serve those in the community and would touch the hearts of everyone that he would meet," the organization said in a statement. "Words can not begin to describe losing such a pillar of our community.
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to his mother, former State Representative Rose Mary Robinson, his family and friends during this difficult time. Isaac's love, mercy and advocacy for social justice will permanently mark him as a champion of the people for generations to come."
Abraham Aiyash
Michigan Muslim Community Council
State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud (D-Dearborn)
State Rep. Isaac Robinson (D-Detroit)
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit)
Next article FDA authorizes use of new two-minute test kit for coronavirus
Previous article Trump grants Whitmer's request for use of National Guard for aid
Resilient Neighborhoods: East Detroit nonprofit has a creative approach to helping local businesses grow
Nominees sought for Dearborn Parks and Rec's three Halls of Fame
More than 200 guns confiscated from state crackdown on illegal possession by parolees, probationers


text:
<?php

namespace Lucid\Cache\Client;

use RuntimeException;

/**
 * @class Apcu
 *
 * @package Lucid\Cache
 * @version $Id$
 * @author iwyg <mail@thomas-appel.com>
 */
class Apcu extends AbstractClient
{
    /**
     * Constructor.
     */
    public function __construct()
    {
        if (!extension_loaded('apcu')) {
            throw new RuntimeException('APCu extension not loaded.');
        }
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function exists($key)
    {
        return apcu_exists($key);
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function read($key)
    {
        $res = apcu_fetch($key, $success);

        return $success ? $res : null;
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function write($key, $data, $expires = 60, $compressed = false)
    {
        return apcu_store($key, $data, $expires);
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function delete($key)
    {
        return apcu_delete($key);
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    public function flush()
    {
        return apcu_clear_cache('user');
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    protected function incrementValue($key, $value)
    {
        $val = apcu_inc($key, $value, $success);

        return $success ? (int)$val : false;
    }

    /**
     * {@inheritdoc}
     */
    protected function decrementValue($key, $value)
    {
        $val = apcu_dec($key, $value, $success);

        return $success ? (int)$val : false;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The assessment is fueled by the country's consumer price index (CPI), a gauge of inflation, rising to a six-year-high of 3.86% year-on-year.
This puts headline inflation just a tad below the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV)'s target of 4%. Nevertheless, SBV is expected not to hike its policy rate for now.
Despite high GDP growth in the first quarter, credit growth since the beginning of the year has been below the government's 17% target and declining. This, according to HSBC's report, has always been a point of emphasis for the government and the SBV to ensure that economic growth remains robust on the back of higher investment and consumption.
Instead of hiking the policy rate, it appears more likely that the government would opt to implement administrative measures to limit inflation. For instance, following last month's CPI print, government officials have reportedly planned to issue a new circular that would reduce healthcare costs beginning 15 July 2018. The Ministry of Industry and Trade has also issued an order not to raise electricity prices this year.
The report stated a decline in health prices could prove to be significant in curbing inflation, considering that it is the largest contributor to rising prices. However, an actual reduction, not just a halt, in the rise of healthcare costs is necessary to bring inflation down. Healthcare costs have actually been largely unchanged over the past two months on a sequential basis, and yet, it has done little to offset the rise in food prices. This is a space worth noting moving forward.
It is, however, expected that headline inflation to average 4% for the year, which is consistent with the SBV's target.
The CPI in May increased over 0.55% month-on-month, largely due to a rise in food prices, which rose 0.9% month-on-month after two consecutive months of decline and an increase of 3.4% year-on-year, its highest since 2014.
Government officials attributed the faster-than-expected rise in prices to higher animal feed and pork prices. Higher global oil prices also led to a notable rise in transport costs, while the rise in other CPI components remained largely in line with the previous month.