Macro thinking, market insight. Investing in global macro overlay. Bayes Theorem enjoyer. Finance and geopolitics affecting money.
Global
Joined November 2018
- Tweets29.3K
- Following7.5K
- Followers3.6K
- Likes87.1K
Pinned Tweet
Gamification (likes, badges, infinite scrolling) creates cheap dopamine cycles. The brain registers a micro achievement ("I got a reaction", "I learned a new fact"), but without the actual acquisition of competencies, resources, or social capital. This creates a state of docility, as the need for action is satisfied by a surrogate.
The mechanism of dopamine has not changed. The density and availability of supernormal stimuli have changed. The brain is evolutionarily wired to seek calories, social information, and novelty. Modern technologies have not "broken" dopamine; they exploit its evolutionary vulnerabilities with unprecedented efficiency by offering a reward with zero energy expenditure.
We live in a world where dopamine has become a curse. In the past, dopamine was responsible for making humans chase their ambitions and fulfill their goals. Now it just makes them docile, aching for the next big spike. Dopamine has been weaponized by the modern world to replace achievement with the illusion of it. You need to take back control.
Mark Verner retweeted
⚡️In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
Mark Verner retweeted
most people in almost every country are just normal people who want to live normal lives and do normal things
Mark Verner retweeted
Reddit 刚刚给所有内容平台结结实实地上了一堂 6000 万美元的残酷商业课：
2024 年，Reddit 以每年约 6000 万美元把数据授权给 Google 训练 AI。
到了2026年 10 月底，Google 的 AI 搜索直接给出答案，用户不再需要链接，导致 Reddit 推荐流量每周缩水超 100 万次。
尽管 2026 Q3 营收大涨 53%，但因流量断崖式下跌与下季度指引恶化，股价单日暴跌 30%。
Reddit 原以为自己卖的是数据资产，但其实卖的是绞死自己的绳索。
AI 正在撕毁过去 20 年“免费开放内容换搜索流量”的互联网契约。
Mark Verner retweeted
在美国文化中，尤其是在学术界和企业界，礼貌和避免冲突的规范占据主导地位。直接的负面反馈往往被视为粗鲁无礼，甚至可能带来法律和人事方面的风险……
In American culture, particularly within academic and corporate environments, a norm of politeness and conflict avoidance dominates. Direct negative feedback is often perceived as rude or may even carry legal and HR risks. Consequently, people default to a safe approach, relying on generic phrases, exaggerated enthusiasm like "Wow, this is amazing!" or evasive remarks such as "I don't know, it happens." This is not necessarily malicious intent but rather a social reflex. For someone accustomed to more direct or informal sincerity, much like your example of having drinks with friends, this behavior comes across as hypocritical and patronizing without offering any real substance.
In the highly competitive landscape of the United States, information, especially regarding the true reasons for failure, unwritten rules, or the actual state of affairs, is a form of currency. Sharing it for free means giving away a competitive advantage. Furthermore, being candid about topics like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, political quotas, or the real value of a research topic carries significant reputational and institutional risks. An American professor or consultant will never tell you the truth if it could potentially be used against them. Silence or generic praise serves as a strategy to minimize personal risk.
American networking is frequently transactional in nature. The experiences described regarding meetups and consultants represent a classic market of illusions where individuals sell access to resources they do not actually possess. Genuine insider circles, such as established networks or closed professional cohorts, are built over years through shared backgrounds, including attending the same schools or belonging to the same social classes. Breaking into these networks through cold outreach is practically impossible.
Mark Verner retweeted
说真话就像在人群中光屁股行走，大家都尴尬。真相是发掘来的不是别人告诉你的，你也不能轻易告诉他人真相，这是收费服务，白嫖了也不会尊重你。
As an expat, I have countless stories of people starting to resent you merely for attempting to establish a basic understanding of the truth, let alone offering actual criticism, just because you laid out the facts clearly for them. Given the opportunity, they are fully capable of sabotaging you or doing something even worse.
There is a wise Eastern proverb stating that he who speaks the truth does not die a natural death. You must be extremely careful about what you say and to whom you say it. My advice is to keep your mouth shut. Do not buy into the concept of having an open mind or similar corporate nonsense. It is actually a rather clever trap. The underlying message is simply for you to open up so they can find your vulnerabilities.
Mark Verner retweeted
Tokenized deposits are bank deposits represented as tokens: still liabilities of the issuing bank, but able to move outside banking hours.
At OpenAssets, we’re working on using that bank money to settle tokenized assets across systems.
Mark Verner retweeted
As an expat, I have countless stories of people starting to resent you merely for attempting to establish a basic understanding of the truth, let alone offering actual criticism, just because you laid out the facts clearly for them. Given the opportunity, they are fully capable of sabotaging you or doing something even worse.
There is a wise Eastern proverb stating that he who speaks the truth does not die a natural death. You must be extremely careful about what you say and to whom you say it. My advice is to keep your mouth shut. Do not buy into the concept of having an open mind or similar corporate nonsense. It is actually a rather clever trap. The underlying message is simply for you to open up so they can find your vulnerabilities.
Mark Verner retweeted
Sempre me perguntam o que acontece se a bolha de IA estourar. E eu sempre respondo que IA não vai mais desaparecer. Assim como o crash da bolha de Internet em 2001 não fez desaparecer a Internet.
Mas essas "startups" aí embaixo? 90% delas vai pro saco. -- e eu diria que a maioria delas é só tentativa de conseguir dinheiro fácil, nada mais.
Mark Verner retweeted
奥尔特曼在 Cheeky Pint 上亲口承认了一个大家心知肚明的事：token 是个假单位。
OpenAI 差点彻底放弃 token 计费。方案是像 AWS 那样：你只管用，用完寄账单。客户非常反感。
为什么？人们觉得，长期来看自己总会被坑。价格不透明，就像一张空白支票。
所以他们宁愿为虚标的数字多付钱。他原话说：“我宁愿你们虚标 token、多收我钱，因为我知道那背后有个真实的东西。”
他的类比是：芯片的“纳米”现在跟现实几乎没什么关系了。而且，思考过程也是要收费的：被问到思维链算不算在价格里时，他说：“大多数厂商都算。”
大家死抱着这个能数的假单位不放，是因为没人相信拿着尺子的公司不会坑他们。
Mark Verner retweeted
Great remarks! Mark!
"In the highly competitive landscape of the United States, information, especially regarding the true reasons for failure, unwritten rules, or the actual state of affairs, is a form of currency. "
In American culture, particularly within academic and corporate environments, a norm of politeness and conflict avoidance dominates. Direct negative feedback is often perceived as rude or may even carry legal and HR risks. Consequently, people default to a safe approach, relying on generic phrases, exaggerated enthusiasm like "Wow, this is amazing!" or evasive remarks such as "I don't know, it happens." This is not necessarily malicious intent but rather a social reflex. For someone accustomed to more direct or informal sincerity, much like your example of having drinks with friends, this behavior comes across as hypocritical and patronizing without offering any real substance.
In the highly competitive landscape of the United States, information, especially regarding the true reasons for failure, unwritten rules, or the actual state of affairs, is a form of currency. Sharing it for free means giving away a competitive advantage. Furthermore, being candid about topics like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, political quotas, or the real value of a research topic carries significant reputational and institutional risks. An American professor or consultant will never tell you the truth if it could potentially be used against them. Silence or generic praise serves as a strategy to minimize personal risk.
American networking is frequently transactional in nature. The experiences described regarding meetups and consultants represent a classic market of illusions where individuals sell access to resources they do not actually possess. Genuine insider circles, such as established networks or closed professional cohorts, are built over years through shared backgrounds, including attending the same schools or belonging to the same social classes. Breaking into these networks through cold outreach is practically impossible.
Mark Verner retweeted
In American culture, particularly within academic and corporate environments, a norm of politeness and conflict avoidance dominates. Direct negative feedback is often perceived as rude or may even carry legal and HR risks. Consequently, people default to a safe approach, relying on generic phrases, exaggerated enthusiasm like "Wow, this is amazing!" or evasive remarks such as "I don't know, it happens." This is not necessarily malicious intent but rather a social reflex. For someone accustomed to more direct or informal sincerity, much like your example of having drinks with friends, this behavior comes across as hypocritical and patronizing without offering any real substance.
In the highly competitive landscape of the United States, information, especially regarding the true reasons for failure, unwritten rules, or the actual state of affairs, is a form of currency. Sharing it for free means giving away a competitive advantage. Furthermore, being candid about topics like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, political quotas, or the real value of a research topic carries significant reputational and institutional risks. An American professor or consultant will never tell you the truth if it could potentially be used against them. Silence or generic praise serves as a strategy to minimize personal risk.
American networking is frequently transactional in nature. The experiences described regarding meetups and consultants represent a classic market of illusions where individuals sell access to resources they do not actually possess. Genuine insider circles, such as established networks or closed professional cohorts, are built over years through shared backgrounds, including attending the same schools or belonging to the same social classes. Breaking into these networks through cold outreach is practically impossible.
今天来说几句心里话。我在美国这么多年，发现一个最大的问题是：美国人从来不会和你说实话，要不就是好为人师爹味重，要不就是基本都是废话。在中国和哥们喝几杯，酒过三盏菜过五味，哥们一句“操！”，之后就开始推心置腹了。这在美国根本不存在，人心隔肚皮，美国人从来不和你说真话。当年我读博士的时候，博士老板扔给我一个屎上雕花的课题，我一看就不太对劲，觉得不值得为这个细枝末节无关大局的课题浪费我的数年青春。结果老板给我大画大饼，说这个课题无比重要，做好了绝对功成名就。这还不算，我问了好些系里的别的老师，都说这课题不得了啊，太重要了。他娘的，我一时间将信将疑，还被忽悠进了（当然拒绝被忽悠也是死路，只能卷铺盖滚回国）。
等到博士快毕业，才知道我做的东西无足轻重，差点找不到博士后，证明了我最初的感觉是对的。那时候找教职一定要找先做博士后缓冲缓冲，然后就是找教职。费了好大的劲申请了两年，只拿到了两个学校的面试，最后全挂。我琢磨着，究竟我的gap在哪里，我也好通过一年时间再提升一下自己，来年再战教职。但是根本不会有人告诉你，你的问题在哪里。美国人都会说：不知道啊不知道，不知道为什么人家不要你。我问：如果我水平太烂，那为啥这么多北大清华本科毕业、哈佛普林斯顿的博士，依旧没找到教职？美国人说：不知道，不知道，it happens。他娘的，反正就是没人愿意和你说真话。
直到一个中国师兄和我说：呵呵，不要白费力气了，现在学校推行DEI，你就别做无用功了。然后这个师兄就卷铺盖回国了。这种话，不一定全对，但是美国人是肯定不会和我这么说的，不但不会说，还会强力否定DEI招工政策，再和我说一些道貌岸然的爹味话，或者是毫无信息量的废话。
后来我只能被迫转行。好笑的是，转行之前，我又拿到一个博士后的offer，一看这个博士后岗位毫无前途，根本不能让我在美国找到教职，只能耗费生命。结果我遇到的许多美国老师都和我说，哇！恭喜恭喜！这个博后的职位太棒了，你一定可以在那里做出好多的成绩，太好了，太为你高兴了！你可拉倒吧，我已经不吃这套了。
更搞笑的是，我转行之前给某杂志写了一篇综述文章，打算做为我科研的遗作墓志铭，于是我用心写了很久。我关系亲密的老师说，写综述毫无前途，浪费人生，你应该乖乖地给博士后老板打工，写个屁的综述。结果，我这篇综述成为了我引用率最高的文章，至今还有不少人在引用。
接下来是在大厂工作，这段旅程按下不表。从大厂辞职创业后，我找了几个美国的商业顾问，当时的想法是，咱家要在美国开铺子，总不能老混华人圈，总得找一些正宗美国人，看看能不能获得有用的信息。结果所谓的商业顾问，无非把那些耳子都听到磨出茧子的如何获得客户，如何lean startup那套，给我照本宣科复述一遍，然后伸手要钱。
我想我靠，网上随便找骗子，不如本地建立联系。于是我花了一年时间，参加了无数的本地聚会，各种meetups，除了加了无数根本不会第二次联系的人的linkedin，别的几乎一无所获。主动联系的美国人，大都是来割的，上来就说，Hi，我可以帮你打通学校的关系，Hi，我可以帮你获得更多的客户，Hi，我可以帮你做marketing。嘿嘿，一开始我还信了几个，后来发现都是毫无资源出来骗的。我现在meetups基本上都不去了，99%都是无效社交。
我寻思着，为什么美国人从来不和我说真话？原因可能有以下三种：
第一，他们从小就练就了说废话的本领，可以大吹特吹、或者好为人师说几个小时言之无物的废话。和只有几面之缘的人说话，说一晚上废话，是基本功。
第二，真话代表着信息差。在美国，信息差是一种商品，是绝对不会免费公开的。
第三，在美国人眼里，我辈不过是外来务工人员。他们有自己的圈子，是不会和你这样的圈子外的外来务工人员说推心置腹的话的。
以上都是我的个人体验，我知道肯定会有人说，他的交友圈特别高大上，都是美国上流社会，你从洋大爷那边获不到有用的信息，只能怪自己没用。那我就只能说good luck了。
Mark Verner retweeted
🚨 الملياردير بيل أكمان يطلق تحذيراً مالياً مرعباً: "إيلون ماسك قد يضطر لاقتراض تريليون دولار لمراكز بيانات الـ AI.. مما سيبقي أسعار الفائدة مرتفعة عالمياً!" 💸🧵👇
في تحليل اقتصادي حاد، يكشف Bill Ackman عن وجه آخر لسباق الذكاء الاصطناعي: ديون سيادية تنافس الدول ورسائل تحذيرية للشركات الناشئة! 👇
🔥 أبرز ما كشفه أكمان بالحرف:
1️⃣ طلب خرافي على الطاقة والتمويل:
الذكاء الاصطناعي هو أثمن أصل في العالم اليوم، والطلب على البنية التحتية له لن يتوقف. لكن استهداف إيلون ماسك بناء مراكز بيانات بقدرات "جيجاوات" هائلة سيتطلب تمويلاً قد يصل إلى تريليون دولار من القروض!
2️⃣ صراع الديون الكبرى:
الشركات العملاقة (Hyperscalers) أصبحت تنافس الدول في حجم الاقتراض، والنتيجة هي طلب هائل على رأس المال المحدود، مما يمنع أسعار الفائدة من الهبوط وسيبقيها مرتفعة لفترة طويلة!
3️⃣ الخطر الأكبر على "السحب السحابية الجديدة" (Neoclouds):
الشركات الكبرى ملك التمويل ستنجو، لكن شركات الـ Neocloud تشبه "المطورين العقاريين المثقلين بالديون"؛ هم الأكثر عرضة للانهيار والخطر بسبب حساسيتهم الشديدة لتكلفة رأس المال والفائدة! ⚠️
💡 الخلاصة الاقتصادية:
سباق الذكاء الاصطناعي لم يعد مجرد "سوفتوير" وتطبيقات، بل أصبح حرب ديون، طاقة، ورأس مال صلب سيعيد تشكيل الاقتصاد العالمي بأكمله!
📌 هل ترى أن الديون الهائلة ستعطل قطار الـ AI أم أن العائد سيكون أكبر بكثير؟ شاركنا رأيك واحفظ التغريدة للرجوع إليها 🔖👇
Mark Verner retweeted
Yann LeCun was right & nobody in this industry wants to say it out loud.
109 million parameters beat 72 billion.
He has spent years saying scale is not the thing that makes a model understand the world. Meta bet the other way. He left in November and started his own lab in Paris.
Last Thursday he published the proof.
The theory everyone has been running on since 2024 is that if you train models big enough, on text, on images, on sound, they all end up with the same picture of reality inside them. Size does it. Nobody ever proved that part.
Randall Balestriero and LeCun proved it. And the proof says size was never doing the work.
What does the work is which two things you show a model together.
A photo and the caption of that photo are two views of one thing. Models trained on pairs like that get there fast.
Two paragraphs pulled from the same document are not two views of one thing. Models trained on those get there slowly and expensively.
Next word prediction is the second kind. That is what every chatbot in the world runs on.
In their tests the first method reached the same understanding after 21.6 million examples. Next word prediction needed 900 million.
And a 109 million parameter text model ended up closer to an image model's view of the world than a 72 billion parameter language model was.
660 times smaller.
Mark Verner retweeted
"我其实已经不做任何传统意义上的工程工作了。我只跟 Claude 对话，让它干所有的活。"
今天，Andrej Karpathy（@karpathy）刚刚发了一篇新博客。他是 OpenAI 创始成员、前特斯拉 AI 总监，全世界最会写代码的人之一，说他不写代码了。
这周五深夜，他刷 YouTube，满屏标题党和垃圾推荐。第二天早上，他让 Opus 5.5 做一个自己的 YouTube，只收录硅谷程序员社区 Hacker News 上被推荐过的视频。
结果：
•从 Hacker News 全部评论里筛出 4 万条推荐
•得到 6454 个视频，覆盖 150 个主题
•不用账号的个性化推荐，数据可导出给你的 Agent 再造一个
•部署上线：hackertube.org
耗时约 2 小时。人只做了三件事：申请 YouTube 数据接口（API）密钥、开服务器、买域名。
真正震撼的是三点：
1、门槛塌了。过去一个小团队几周的活，现在一个人在两次喝咖啡之间做完，还不碰代码。
2、个人第一次能拒绝平台。对算法不满，过去只能忍；现在可以造一个只为自己服务的版本。
3、人的价值变了。AI 负责干活，人只做两件事：处理 AI 进不去的现实环节，以及判断什么值得做。
最稀缺的不再是会写代码，而是知道自己不想要什么。
如果给你 2 小时，你最想重做哪个平台？
Mark Verner retweeted
李嘉诚的现金流到底多恐怖？看完这三件事，你就明白了！
第一，1996年张子强用一把AK47拦下李泽钜的座驾，全程不到两分钟就绑走了世纪富豪的大儿子。
他直接找上李嘉诚谈赎金，开口就是20亿港元。
李嘉诚却显得云淡风轻地说了句，我已经问过香港最大的银行，他们最多让我提10亿，这是最大的极限了。
成哥，你果然是干大事的人，别说30年前，就算今天中国富豪榜上的大佬们，有几个能在一天内凑齐10亿？
更夸张的是，李嘉诚家里还常备4000万现金也要送给张子强，不过张子强觉得4不吉利，只拿了3800万。
最终这次绑架的赎金高达10亿3800万港元，至今是全球绑架案中的最高纪录。
为了方便张子强运钱，李嘉诚又赔进去一辆面包车，张子强还跑了两趟才把钱拉完。
全程李嘉诚都没有报警，这件事也一直是个秘密，直到后来张子强在内地落网，才供出了这场世纪大劫案。
第二，时间回到1984年，中英谈判确定香港将回归，英资财团开始疯狂抛售香港资产。
第二年，香港最大的电力公司港灯集团被摆上台面交易，李嘉诚果断出手，斥资29亿港元拿下港灯，震惊全亚洲。
记者会上李嘉诚轻描淡写地说，我签字之后，不到半个钟就备好资金了。
如今香港本岛的每一度电都来自港灯，是李嘉诚手里四大旗舰企业之一。
都说李嘉诚买下半个英国，那半个英国到底值多少钱。
从90年代开始李嘉诚就收购了英国的三大港口和第三大通讯公司。
20年前进军英国零售，15年前吃下英国30%的天然气，25%的电力，还有7%的自来水。
十年前拿下英国的机场和铁路。
上个月，长江基建又提出70亿英镑约658亿人民币收购泰晤士水务公司。
截至目前，长和系在英国的总投资高达3380亿港元。
视线来到巴拿马运河，此次交易的港口一旦落实，长和集团一口气就能获得190亿美元的现金收入，相当于1374亿元人民币。
第三，所以比资金储备，真的没人比得过超人。
他的长和系账上常年储备着1500亿港元现金或等价物，从而能够一次次扛过经济危机，并且在危机之中有足够的弹药抄底优质资产。
从1950年创立长江塑胶厂开始算到现在，这么多年，李嘉诚没有一年亏过钱，才让其在1999年至今稳坐华人首富之位。
Mark Verner retweeted
Es gibt in Deutschland - wahrscheinlich überall in der EU - dafür ein Auskunftsrecht nach DSVGO.
Das heisst ihr schreibt dem FA dass ihr einen Datenauszug von allen personenbezogenen Daten wünscht und das FA ist verpflichtet euch alle Daten zu benennen.
Praxis: Das FA macht das nicht und sendet nur euere eigene Adresse und die Steuernummer.
Das ist bei mir so gewesen, weshalb ich im Moment mit der Deutschen Datenschutzbeauftragten eine Finanzgerichtsklage gegen ein FA führe, was sich zu einem immer größer werdendem Desaster für das FA ausweitet. Ich kann noch keine weiteren Details bekannt geben, werde das aber nachholen, wenn ich rechtlich dazu in der Lage bin.
Mark Verner retweeted
How many CEOs actually give a crap about regular investors? Alex Karp and $PLTR are built different.
Big shoutout to @amitisinvesting for this great talk, he is just as cool in real life as he comes across in his videos. Well deserved!
youtu.be/uHjbeFWyGs4?si=oIl1…
Mark Verner retweeted
Amerika’da yaşanan uçak kazası insanın içini ürpertiyor.
Austin’den Bahamalar’a giden bir özel jet dün Florida’da düşerek yolun ortasına çakılıyor, içindeki 9 kişinin hepsi de vefat ediyor. Uçak bir Learjet 60, 2004 model, yani 22 yaşında. 2019’a kadar tek sahibi olmuş, sonra iki kez el değiştirmiş, 2023’ten beri Delaware’de kurulu bir şirketin üzerinde. Bir charter firmasının listesinde de görünüyor, yani parayla yolcu taşıyabilen bir uçak.
Bu uçağın sıfırı 2004’te yaklaşık 13 milyon dolarken bugün düşen uçakla aynı yaşta bir Learjet 60 ortalama 2,5-3 milyon dolara satılıyor. Yani değerinin beşte dördünü kaybetmiş. Bir nevi villa parasına jet satıyorlar. Tabii havacılıkta jeti almak ucuz, uçurmak pahalı derler. Motorların büyük bakımı bile tek başına 1 milyon doları geçiyormuş.
Bir dönem bu uçak çok fazla tercih ediliyor, 430 kadar üretiliyor. Ama sicili pek parlak değil. 2007’ye kadarki verilerle her 100 bin uçuş saatinde 0,6 kaza yapmış, rakibi Hawker 800’de bu oran 0,16, Citation VII’de sıfır. Yani sınıfının en kazalı jeti. Bu modelden 8 uçak tamamen kullanılamaz hale gelmiş, 4’ünde can kaybı var. 2008’de de Blink-182 davulcusu Travis Barker bu uçaktan sağ kurtulmuş ama aynı uçakta vefat edenler olmuş.
Akabinde zamanla müşteriler daha yeni jetlere geçmiş, satışlar düştüğü için de firma 2021’de Bombardier Learjet’in üretimini bitirmiş.
Şu an aynı paraya piyasada alınacak başka bir yeni nesil jet yok. 14 yıldır dünyanın en çok satan hafif jeti Embraer Phenom 300’ün sıfırı bile 14 milyon doları geçiyor, 2010-2013 model ikinci eli bile 6-8 milyon dolar. Yani 3 milyon dolara jet sahibi olmak isteyen ya eski bir jete razı olacak ya da hiç almayacak.
Bir de baktığımızda özel jetler yolcu uçaklarına göre daha tehlikeli. Yolcu uçakları her gün uçuyor ve dünyanın en sıkı denetimi altında. Özel jetin bakım sıklığını ise sahibi kendi seçiyor, tabii yine kontrol ediliyordur ama havayolu seviyesinde de değildir. Zaten rakamlar da bunu destekliyor: Her 100 bin uçuş saatinde ölümlü kaza oranı yolcu uçaklarında 0,034, charter jetlerinde 0,155, özel ve şirket jetlerinde 0,197. Yani özel jet, yolcu uçağından altı kata yakın riskli durumda.
Yolcu uçaklarının pilotları 2-3 günde bir uçak uçuruyor. Yakın mesafeye gidenler gün aşırı bile kokpitte. Ama özel jetlerde aynı değil. Jetin sahibinin işi olacak da o uçak havalanacak.
Havacılıkta şöyle bir söz var: Bir uçağın en sağlıklı olduğu yer gökyüzüdür. Uçak yerde yattıkça bozulur, uçtukça sağlıklı kalır.
Yani insan gibi düşünün. İnsan sürekli evde yatarsa sağlığı bozulur, yerinden kalkması, dışarı çıkması, hareket etmesi lazım. Uçaklarda da aynı sistem var.
Dolayısıyla özellikle iş jetleri yerde daha uzun süre kaldıkları için daha riskliler.
Bir uçak için en makul olan şey her gün havada olmasıdır. Uçaklar yerde yatmak için değil, uçmak için tasarlanmıştır.
Yani bir nevi özel jet lüks görünüyor ama asıl lüks en sıkı kontrol edilen yolcu uçağına binmek gibi bir şey.
Hayatını kaybedenlerin yakınlarına sabır diliyorum.
