Jaime Souza

Engenheiro, paulistano de coração, carioca de vida, amante de música, tecnologia, natureza e velocidade...

[Jaime Souza @jsdsouza]

Você pode aceitar meu convite para eu ganhar a recompensa? Para detalhes do evento, por favor, consulte as regras do evento
https://t.co/6pYDQUkbVn

[Jaime Souza @jsdsouza]

@Adamaestr0_ Opus

[Transparência Internacional - Brasil @TI_InterBr]

Em sua trajetória de amizade com o crime, Ciro Nogueira foi citado por ao menos quinze delatores, em diferentes esquemas, mas a Justiça brasileira até hoje nada fez

E se não fizer até outubro, Ciro comandará, junto com Antônio Rueda (também citado em inúmeros esquemas, inclusive com o crime organizado) a maior fatia do fundo eleitoral: 4,9 bilhões nas mãos dessas figuras.

Reportagem de @brenopires.

[Rohit @ai_rohitt]

A man spends 50 years teaching at MIT.

He knows his time is running out.

So he records one last lecture — everything he knows, distilled into a single hour.

He died 5 months later.

This is that lecture.

The most important hour you'll watch this week. 👇
Bookmark it for later

[Jaime Souza @jsdsouza]

@thiagoban7 @oraulsena Qualquer investimento em infraestrutura parece não fazer sentido e não é estimulado. Ferrovias, linhas de transmissão, industrialização... Enquanto há contratos bilionários com termoelétricas, bilhões são jogados fora das solares e eólicas. https://t.co/3SWaoJxvoJ

[Rose Celine Investments 🌹 @realroseceline]

Negative working capital

Negative working capital is one of the most misunderstood concepts in investing. Most people hear the word “negative” and assume it is bad, but in reality it can be one of the most powerful characteristics a business can possess.

Working capital is simply current assets minus current liabilities. In plain English, think of it as cash and inventory minus short term obligations.

Imagine a normal business, such as a furniture store. You buy a couch from a supplier for $1,000 and the supplier gives you 30 days to pay. You now owe $1,000, but nobody has purchased the couch yet. You have inventory sitting on the floor, capital tied up in the business, and cash that cannot be used elsewhere. This is how many traditional businesses operate. Growth requires more inventory, more working capital, and more cash.

Now imagine the opposite. A customer places an order today and pays immediately. The business receives cash upfront but does not have to pay suppliers for another 30, 60, or 90 days. The company gets the money first and pays everyone else later. That is negative working capital.

$AMZN is one of the best examples. A customer buys a product today and Amazon collects the cash immediately. The supplier may not get paid for 60 days and the shipping provider may not get paid for 30 days. $AMZN receives the cash before everyone else gets paid. In effect, the customer is financing the business.

Think about what that means. On day one $AMZN receives $100 from a customer. On day sixty $AMZN pays the supplier $70. For sixty days $AMZN gets to hold and use that cash. Multiply that by millions of transactions every day and billions of transactions every year and you begin to understand why the economics are so powerful.

$COST is another fantastic example. You walk into $COST and fill a cart with groceries. $COST receives the cash immediately, but suppliers may not be paid for weeks. As sales increase, more customers provide cash and more supplier credit appears. Working capital becomes a source of funding rather than a use of funding.

This is one of the reasons investors love businesses with negative working capital. Most companies require additional capital to grow. A restaurant needs more inventory, more employees, more equipment, and more locations. Growth consumes cash.

Negative working capital businesses are different. Growth often creates cash. The faster they grow, the more money flows into the business before expenses need to be paid. That is a remarkable advantage.

$MA and $V are even more extreme. They have virtually no inventory, no factories, no warehouses, and very little capital tied up in operations. Cash arrives almost instantly while the business itself requires very little incremental investment. That is one reason these businesses generate such extraordinary returns on capital and convert such a high percentage of earnings into free cash flow.

Think of it this way. A normal business says, “I need money so I can grow.” A negative working capital business says, “The more I grow, the more money customers give me.”

That is why investors get excited when they find negative working capital combined with high margins, high returns on capital, a strong moat, and a long runway for growth. It often signals a business that can expand for years without constantly needing outside capital.

It is one of the hidden superpowers behind businesses such as $AMZN, $COST, $MA and increasingly parts of $MELI.

The ideal business gets paid immediately, pays everyone else later, and never has to commit much of its own capital to growth. That is about as close to a financial superpower as a business can get.

🌹

[Tiago Guitián Reis @Tiagogreis]

Parte dos aumentos de impostos que vimos nos últimos anos são para pagar a Copa de 2014.

Fizemos a Copa emitindo dívida que seria paga no futuro. O futuro chegou. E agora precisamos pagar o juros desta dívida.

Se você detém títulos públicos, parabéns. Você fez um bom negócio: o país acreditou neste conto de fadas e emitiu dívida para fazer esta festa. E você detém esta dívida. Está sendo muito bem remunerado para isso.

Se você não detém título público, você é o pato da mesa. Você acreditou que fazer Copa seria bom, tomou de 7 a 1 em casa e ainda paga até hoje os juros da dívida contraída.

[MART @martn3ws]

É assustador como Zach King fazia essas coisas muito antes da IA aparecer

[The ₿itcoin Therapist @TheBTCTherapist]

SpaceX IPO liquidity exiting Bitcoin right now

[Tiago Guitián Reis @Tiagogreis]

Se você contribuir com R$ 988,09 durante 40 anos para o INSS, poderá receber o teto de R$ 8.475,55.

Se você investir o mesmo valor por 40 anos, poderá ter um patrimônio de aproximadamente R$ 2,4 milhões, que renderia cerca de R$ 21,8 mil por mês.

Quer aprender a montar sua própria aposentadoria e não depender do INSS?

Acesse essa calculadora para saber o quanto precisa investir para atingir esse objetivo.

👇 https://t.co/PP8AO4sNBd

[Felipe Tadewald @FelipeTadewald]

"Busque 3 coisas numa pessoa: integridade, inteligência e energia. Se ela não tem a primeira, nem perca seu tempo com as duas últimas"

- Warren Buffett

[Rodrigo Rocha @rmaues]

Seja honesto e me responda: Imagina essas palavras vindo do Bolsonaro, ou de qualquer um que estivesse concorrendo com o Lula, o que você faria?

Para deixar claro minha posição. Esses dois(Lula/Bolsonaro) são um atraso para o Brasil. Mas seja pelo menos coerente!

[Millie Marconi @MillieMarconnni]

A Chicago philosopher wrote one book in 1940 proving that 95% of the books you have read in your life, you didn't actually read, and Charlie Munger has been telling people to read it for 50 years.

His name was Mortimer Adler.

He spent 40 years at the University of Chicago, ran the editorial board of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and built his entire career on one uncomfortable observation about the people around him.

Most adults who called themselves well-read had not actually read a book in the real sense even once. They had run their eyes over the pages, registered the words, formed a vague impression, and put it back on the shelf.

The book had passed through them without ever entering them.

In 1940 he wrote How to Read a Book. It has stayed in print for 86 years.

Charlie Munger recommends it. Naval Ravikant recommends it. Fareed Zakaria recommends it.

Every serious thinker who builds a career on absorbing information eventually finds their way to this book, and the reason is that Adler had isolated something nobody else was naming clearly.

There are four levels of reading. Almost everyone is stuck on the second one. The fourth level is so different from what most people call reading that you have probably never done it in your entire life.

Level one is elementary.

You learn it as a child. You decode the letters into words and the words into sentences. You finish the sentence and understand roughly what it said. This is reading the way a 7-year-old reads, and almost every adult on earth has stopped developing past this point in some quiet way.

Level two is inspectional.

This is skimming. You move through a book quickly to figure out what it is broadly about. You read the back cover, scan the table of contents, glance at a few paragraphs, and form an opinion. Most adults who claim to have read 50 books a year are actually doing this. They are inspecting books, not reading them. They walk away with a vague sense of the argument and almost none of the evidence that supports it.

Level three is analytical.

This is the level Adler said most people have never properly experienced. You take one book and you wrestle with it for as long as it takes. You identify the question the author is trying to answer. You map their argument from front to back. You write your disagreements in the margins. You force yourself to articulate, in your own words, what the author is claiming and why. The point is not to finish the book. The point is to argue with it as if the author were sitting across the table from you. Most people never do this once in their life, because it is exhausting and slow and feels nothing like the reading they were taught as children.

Level four is the one almost nobody knows exists. Adler called it syntopical reading. The word means "across topics," and the technique is something closer to running a small private research lab in your own head.

You pick a single question that actually matters to you. How does power corrupt people. Why do civilizations collapse. What makes a marriage last. How does a person change their own mind. Then you assemble five or ten or twenty books from different authors, different centuries, different traditions, all of them taking a swing at the same question.

You do not read any of them cover to cover. You move between them. You find the chapter in book three that addresses the same question as the chapter in book seven. You force those two authors to argue with each other inside your own head.

The book stops being the unit of reading. The question becomes the unit. And the authors become voices in a conversation you are now hosting.

This is the level where reading stops being consumption and starts being construction.

You are no longer absorbing what someone else thinks. You are building a position of your own out of the friction between people who disagreed.

Adler argued that this is the only level of reading where you stop being a passive receiver of other people's ideas and start being someone who can produce ideas of their own.

The reason Charlie Munger has been recommending this book for 50 years is that this is exactly how Munger has always thought. He calls it building a latticework of mental models. The technique he is describing is just syntopical reading applied for a lifetime.

You take the strongest insight from psychology, the strongest insight from biology, the strongest insight from economics, and you stack them against the same problem until something new falls out the bottom.

The reason most people never reach level four is not that it is intellectually difficult. It is that it is logistically uncomfortable. It requires you to keep multiple books open at once.

It requires you to take notes that nobody is going to grade. It requires you to abandon the goal of finishing books and replace it with the goal of answering questions.

This is also why AI just changed everything Adler was teaching.

NotebookLM, Claude, and tools like them let you do syntopical reading at a speed that would have looked like magic to a Chicago philosopher in 1940.

You upload 10 books on the same question. You ask the AI to surface every place those authors agree and every place they contradict each other.

The technique Adler said almost nobody on earth had reached can now be run on a Sunday afternoon by anyone with a laptop and one good question.

The technique was always the unlock. The bottleneck used to be time. The bottleneck is now curiosity.

Most people will keep reading the way they always have. A book at a time. Eyes over the pages. No question driving it. No other authors in the room. Adler called that level two for a reason.

You are not behind on your reading list.

You are behind on the level you are reading at.

[Tiago Guitián Reis @Tiagogreis]

Interessante.

Zero eficiência de perda empregos por IA.

[Love Music @khnh80044]

Perfect! So difficult and dangerous, and she made it look so easy. Wonderful!💯💯💖❤️

[Felipe Tadewald @FelipeTadewald]

Notas para mim mesmo:

1. Não tenha medo de dizer não.

2. Um dia ruim não significa uma vida ruim.

3. Não deixe de fazer algo por conta das críticas.

4. Respeite-se se quiser que os outros o respeitem.

5. É melhor perder pessoas do que se perder.

[Brasilemmapas 🇧🇷 @brasilemmapas]

📂Relatório de pesquisa: Intensidade da Jornada de Trabalho no Brasil: uma análise regional e estrutural (2025) https://t.co/87QjhZOoeB

[Marcelo Arantes @omarceloarantes]

O menino LesioNey

[Tiago Guitián Reis @Tiagogreis]

Empresa vale R$30 bilhões na bolsa.

Tem um dos melhores time de tecnologia do Brasil.

Para empresa grande, o fim da escala 6x1 não é ruim. Vão embarcar tecnologia na operação. Vão contratar a IBM ou Accenture como consultoria e botar IA na operação toda.

Ruim somente para o pequeno e médio empreendimento.

O grande tem budget para botar tecnologia.

Repare o que já está acontecendo neste segmento de farmácia: as pequenas e médias estão morrendo.

Quem lucra com isso tudo? O grande empresário.

O pequeno e médio não conseguem competir.

E o trabalhador é substituído por tecnologia.

Não fui eu que criei a lei, não reclame comigo. Mas quem investe em grandes empresas será o vencedor.

[Antonio Cabrera @cabreraagro]

Thomas Sowell talvez seja o melhor retrato da votação de ontem sobre a escala 6x1.
Ele ensinava:
“Quando as pessoas desejam o impossível, somente os mentirosos podem satisfazê-las.”

É exatamente isso.
Os deputados que votaram a favor dessa proposta estão vendendo ao brasileiro uma promessa bonita, simples e eleitoralmente sedutora.
Mas a economia não funciona por decreto.
A fase do Papai Noel já passou. E essa conta, cedo ou tarde, será cobrada de quem produz, de quem emprega e, principalmente, de quem mais precisa trabalhar.

Prometer redução de jornada sem encarar produtividade, custo do trabalho, informalidade, competitividade e sobrevivência das pequenas empresas é tratar o trabalhador como massa de manobra.
É fingir que boa intenção paga salário.
Não paga.
Quem paga salário é empresa funcionando, economia crescendo, investimento acontecendo e produtividade aumentando.
Por isso, os deputados que votaram contra essa ilusão merecem ser lembrados.
Foram poucos. Mas foram os que tiveram coragem de enfrentar o aplauso fácil e dizer o óbvio: não existe prosperidade construída contra a realidade econômica.

Essa lista merece um quadro.
E Santa Catarina merece destaque: dos 22 parlamentares que votaram contra, 10 são catarinenses.
Em um Congresso cada vez mais dominado por fisiologismo, eles escolheram responsabilidade.
E responsabilidade, hoje, virou ato de coragem.
#Escala6X1 #Prosperidade #LivreMercado