Right. Local storage is much more performant and cost effective than network storage. I tried to run some iops sensitive workload on cloud. It turns out I need to pay several thousands dollar per month for the performance I can get on a $100 nvme ssd.

I'm working on a web app right now that does a lot of heavy/live/realtime processing with workers. The original thought was to run those workers on the node servers and stream the results over a socket, charging by the CPU/minute. But it surprised me that the performance looks a lot better up to about 16 workers if the user just turns over a few cores to local web workers and runs it on their own box. As long as they don't need 64 cores or something, it's faster to run locally, even on an older machine. Thread transport is slow but sockets are slower at a distance; the bottlenecks are in the main thread anyway. So I've been making sure parts are interchangeable between web workers and "remote socket web workers" assigned to each instance of the app remotely.

Seems like an accurate emulation of the real capitalism, as intended by the game creator.

No. There is really no difference whether CEO is paid in cash or in stock, regarding the negative impact of the pay.

Scenario 1: CEO get paid $50 million in stock. Scenario 2: CEO get paid $50 million in cash. And then the company raise $50 million from stock market, so that it will have the same amount of cash as scenario 1.

They are the same.

Or they may not be able to raise cash, or they may be a private company without access to the stock market, or they may have bylaws preventing such a thing.

Either way, the employee is not made worse off because the CEO collects a fat stack of options at the expense of the shareholder.

> Either way, the employee is not made worse off because the CEO collects a fat stack of options at the expense of the shareholder.

Of course the employees are made worse off by that: If the shareholders didn't give all that money to the CEO, they could give it to the other employees in stead and be no worse off themselves. The CEO uses up all the available potential for employee compensation at the expense of everyone else.

Your thesis is just astonishingly weird.

For Fibonacci sequence,

             x = 1x^1
      x * g(x) =        1x^2 + 1x^3 + 2x^4 + 3x^5 + 5x^6 + ...
  + x^2 * g(x) =               1x^3 + 1x^4 + 2x^5 + 3x^6 + ...
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  =       g(x) = 1x^1 + 1x^2 + 2x^3 + 3x^4 + 5x^5 + 8x^6 + ...

Hence,

     x = (1 - x - x^2) * g(x)
  g(x) = x / (1 - x - x^2)

The techniques of constructing such sequences have been studied formally in combinatorics under the name "generating function".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generating_function

In this case, the sequence 1, 2, 4, ..., 2^n has the generating function,

  g(z) = sum[i = 0 to inf] (2^i * z^i) 
       = 1 + 2z + 4z^2 + ... 
       = 1 / (1 - 2z)

Substituting a small number 10^-k, such as z = 0.0001 gives 10000/9998, and then right shifting by dividing 10000 leads to 1/9998.

What more interesting is that some other useful sequences can often be obtained from the function, by operations like differentiation and integration, or adding / multiplying with other functions.

For example:

  2z + (4*2)z^2 + (8*3)z^3 + (16*4)z^4 ...
  = d/dz(g(z))
  = d/dz(z * 1 / (1 - 2z))
  = 2 / (1 - 2z)^2

Put z = 1/10000 = 0.0001, this yields 50000000/24990001 = 2. 0008 0024 0064 0160 0384 ...