IronKettle

> The price in USDT and USDT-only exchanges could indeed rocket, but the price in real actual USD would be expected to fall.

Wait, would it?

If you were an arb wouldn't you:

1) Buy bitcoin on a different exchange (with a temporarily lower price)

2) Transfer that bitcoin to, say, bitfinex (or another USDT exchange)

3) Sell that bitcoin for, say, ETH

4) Transfer that ETH back to the first exchange

5) Profit

Though I guess that would also flood the market and tank the ETH-BTC price as well (though I guess another arb could take advantage of that discrepancy as well).

Or are you talking about exchanges that only do USDT-BTC?

> the MTA is a private entity which receives the bulk of its funding from the state

That's not really true. The biggest source of funding for the MTA is fares, followed closely by dedicated taxes (i.e. there would be no reason for the taxes to exist were it not specifically for the MTA). A majority of those taxes are levied specifically on people who live in the MTA's core area (basically counties surrounding and including the city) [1].

The state actually dips into these dedicated taxes to cover other budget shortfalls.

You make it sound as though the state covers for the MTA using the general tax pool, which is such a minor part of the MTA's budget (through subsidies largely) as to be not meaningful.

> the state government is (ostensibly) responsible for holding it accountable.

No, the board is. The governor appoints 6 board members, the city 4, and the other 7 are delegates from various counties throughout the state.

> New York is a special case

Special case according to whom? Georgia rated 3rd-to-last on Ballotpedia's "competitiveness index" for the 2016 election cycle [2]. If your argument is that:

1) New York overtly colludes to remain uncompetitive

2) Georgia doesn't

3) George still manages to hold less competitive elections than New York

then I think a logical conclusion is one of:

1) Georgia legislators collude but less overtly

2) There's less transparency about the collusion in Georgia

3) Collusion clearly isn't as large a factor in uncompetitive elections as other factors

1: http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-funding

2: https://ballotpedia.org/2016_state_legislative_elections_ana...

> We're talking about New York State, not New York City.

That's pretty hard to infer given the context, since the MTA is controlled by both the city and the state.

> but he is right that most districts aren't at all competitive

This is also true of say, Georgia. You can see for example that no one even ran against Buddy Carter in 2016 [1]. Most districts, period, aren't really that competitive.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_1st_congressional_...

> One of the root causes of New York's government dysfunction (though not the only one) is that New Yorkers reliably vote in the democrat candidate regardless of pretty much any other consideration.

Er, what? That's not really true. Bloomberg was an independent and his predecessor was Giuliani.

Over the last 40 years, the mayor has been a democrat less than half the time (18 years over Koch, Dinkins, and now de Blasio).

? The COGS for most software approaches 0 pretty rapidly, so it's just as arbitrary that Spotify charges $10/month for a premium subscription.

The price of software (and any good, theoretically) is rarely priced based on expenses.

I think you can retroactively pay for COBRA, yeah?

You can enroll after an event and it'll be as though you had insurance the whole time. You'll have to pay for the retroactive coverage, but it's a pretty smooth way (assuming nothing happens) to avoid paying for COBRA while still technically "having coverage".

Though I think there's a time-limit on it.

More than likely (in fact I would put it at like, 99% chance):

It's an OFAC thing. If they allow money transactions from Cuban nationals they run the risk of pissing off the Treasury dept.

Many companies do it in a very ham-fisted way (flag anything with "Cuba" in the title, etc.).

Related, kinda:

Robinhood seems to be pulling in a lot of different directions and there's all these "early access" features that never seem to actually, well, launch.

I've now signed up for:

* Web access (otherwise it's mobile-only)

* Options trading

* And now, cryptocurrency trading (because why not)

and I haven't gotten access to any of them yet, even though Robinhood for web has been in "early access" for quite awhile now.

So I signed up for this, but I have very little faith that I'll get access any time soon (even with the vague promise of early February).

> If you being late to your job causes others to start doing the same

You're missing the point entirely: Who cares if they're also late?

Short of them being late to something important like a meeting, it seriously couldn't matter less than any of the thousand other things you should focus on as a manager.

Unless you work in something with external time pressures (e.g. I used to work in equities and US market hours dictated our need to be available) there's no reason it should matter whether someone shows up at 9 or 9:45. If you're really worried about people missing each other, set core hours (11-3 say) where everyone's expected to be available.

Semi-related question: Why is that? I've been looking for resources on why AMD is a non-starter, but most searches just turn up comparisons for low-level consumers.

> this one has already been mitigated

Correct me if I'm wrong: It's been mitigated by applying a patch that has fairly severe performance implications, no? How does this not affect the institutional clients' bottom line in that case?

Disclaimer: I know relatively little about differences between processor architectures, so this might be totally wrong because Intel might just have them over a barrel on this.

I think the major difference between this and, say, the Equifax blowup, is that Intel's institutional clients are affected by this.

I'm not sure what they're thinking internally, but it stands to reason that they're probably a bit upset at least: Their CapEx just went up to maintain the same level of computing power. I'd be surprised if internally Google is buying the "AMD is just as affected" line that Intel's been throwing out.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if they're at least evaluating AMD.

Or, again, maybe Intel just totally has them over a barrel and transitioning isn't feasible at all. It certainly doesn't paint a great picture of Intel's future if AMD does catch up, though.

> If you're getting paid handsomely in cash, you should be able to weather that interruption.

Two glaring issues:

1) What people should do and what they actually do are two different things. People should eat sensible portions of healthful food. And yet, we have an obesity epidemic.

Saying people (even among those with high salaries) should be able to weather an interruption isn't very helpful when in practice many can't [1].

2) Which startups can afford to pay people handsomely in cash? (early) Startups offer equity to employees in large part because they can't afford to compete on salary.

> Amazon equity is publicly traded; you can buy as much of it as you want with any salary.

It's on top of Amazon's fairly generous salaries. The comparison was between being given Amazon equity, which is obviously worth something, vs. a private company's equity which is almost always worthless.

Which non-unicorn startup is offering $250K+ a year in salary and bonus for a plain old software engineer?

1: https://qz.com/520414/the-high-earning-poor/

> AmaGooBookSoft hires, to a first approximation, only pedigreed developers with their AKC papers in hand.

I think that is a very outdated view of those companies. IME at least, you've described Google's hiring process pretty accurately but are fairly incorrect about the rest.

In particular, Amazon is hiring like crazy [1]. Even back when I graduated, Amazon was known for being a place that was easy to get into if you were willing to stomach the sometimes-insane workload (which still pales in comparison to some startup sweatshop horror stories).

Again, I didn't graduate from a program with much name recognition and AmaGooAppleFaceSoft still snatched up 45% of my graduating class.

> (actually: pretty much just GooBook)

I'm not sure why you're only including those two.

Amazon share prices have quintupled over the last 5 years. If you were compensated with RSUs you've done very well for yourself.

I know several MS software engineers who were (very recently) paid roughly $150K + $100K in equity each of their first four years (admittedly after attaining their Master's, though I'm not sure how much it helped).

1: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?offset=0&result_limit=10&s...

> shares I had to opt in to, at the cost of some salary.

I think this is a fair way to approach the situation.

> People on this thread are making comparisons to 300k/yr Google salaries. ... But for employers, it's a pretty silly comparison.

Why though? You're competing with them, whether you like it or not. AmaGooFaceAppleSoft hired 45% (including those going on to grad school, etc) of my graduating class, and I didn't go to Stanford. No joke, it was really 45%. These companies are vacuuming up everyone, and some of them are shockingly easy to get an offer from.

Sure, they didn't get paid 300k/yr to start. But with how much the equity has appreciated since then, it's probably not that far off.

So that leaves you with the remaining 25% who didn't get hired/didn't want to work at at one of those companies/didn't go to grad school, and you're competing with every other startup for them - including the larger, more established ones who can reasonably say they won't disappear tomorrow (e.g. AirBnB).

> What downside risk is there to the employee if a company fails?

Sorry to be snippy, but: Come on man, do I really need to explain this one? Sudden loss of employment is incredibly disruptive at best, and for many it's a significant financial hardship.

> You'd take the job because it is paying you.

So is Amazon. And they're offering Amazon equity, which is killing it recently. So, again, why would I take a job at a high risk venture if there's no potential lottery ticket?

> Startups pay in equity because they don't have cash.

Yeah, exactly. Startups can't afford to compete with Amazon on salary.

> Those chasing Klondike gold.

Come on, as opposed to most startup founders? Anyone who has taken even a seed round is chasing klondike gold as well.

Ehhh. A few interesting thoughts though not necessarily original, the "your equity is worth 0" mantra has been repeated enough that it's not ground-breaking.

It maybe makes sense for huge, publicly traded companies like Apple (who could easily afford to just pay their employees enough to offset the equity loss and then some), but of course there's the whole idea that equity compensation aligns incentives for employees and the business.

> “You people in tech are crazy. I pay my employees handsomely in cash and I keep all of the equity for myself.”

This would be catastrophic for the startup industry:

* Why would I ever work for a company that has huge downsides (chance of failure, lack of resources, etc.) when I don't get to enjoy any of the potential upside

* How many startups can afford to pay their employees "handsomely" (relative to what they could be earning elsewhere)?

The only way I imagine a 0-equity world working is one where VCs cough up a ton more money to compensate startup employees handsomely. And to be fair to Fred, maybe that's what he's suggesting (spending more money now to retain more equity later). But I didn't see that stated anywhere.

Silly in the sense that it's considered an unforgivable offense relative to how mild it actually is (in the realm of "ways you can screw up your life and others"). It's the staunchness that makes it silly.

If my sister cheated on her husband, I wouldn't stop talking to her forever or kick her out of the family (to the extent that I have that power). I'd be disappointed and it would affect our dynamic, sure, but it's not even close to a shunning offense.

Thinking on it, there's actually relatively few things she could do to warrant that kind of treatment.

Er, buybacks and mergers both involve a "greater fool" (either the company itself or the acquiring company).

This argument is also true of any equity that doesn't pay out dividends.

Most people wouldn't consider the stock market to be a zero-sum game. Maybe in the ultimate long-term, but not within a time frame that's meaningful for anyone.

Maybe?

Bad people can still be the recipients of injustices or undue hardship. For an extreme example, you can still feel bad for a thief who gets tortured extensively.

You can even feel sorry for people who are led to ruin by their own hubris/etc. For an actual example: It's not insane to feel sorry for Travis Kalanick. Yeah, he sounds like a bad person. It would still really suck to see your "magnum opus" swept away from you. Did he need to be removed? Yes. Would I like to be friends with him? No. Do I still feel bad for him? Yeah, kinda.

Sure, the guy from the article kinda sounds like a dirtbag. Still, he was shunned from his family (and a close family at that) and is essentially losing all of his close social network because of staunch religious beliefs that most of us would call silly. That sucks.

People don't have to fall into this binary classification of "sympathetic" or "unsympathetic". I can feel bad for him losing his family and wife, but feel no sympathy for his financial situation.

As an aside, this is also part of what makes leaving cults so hard: The thought of losing your entire social circle, including your immediate family, is daunting. If you want to know why more people are involved in cults despite being seemingly normal, this is a big part of it.

You get told to "hang yourself" and told you should "die screaming" or just have someone yelling "cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt" at you multiple times a week?

I used to work for a hedge fund. Mostly people just didn't understand it and were skeptical, but phrased it in a way that gave me an out: "I don't understand how it provides any value to society," or things like that. Nobody ever harassed me online with just "cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt".

Also worth noting that this was somewhat of a plot point in The Big Short:

* A GS employee scoffs at Christian Bale's character (Burry) for saying that he actually investigated the mortgages that comprised a few CDOs

* Steve Carrell's team goes down to Miami to meet realtors and mortgage buyers

Oh sure, fair point. When I think of the college sports monolith I'm typically thinking of D1 exclusively.

I don't think many sports fans would care or even notice if you got rid of D2/3 programs. It's an interesting point when people like Ben Wallace or Chris Ivory come along, but it's mostly a non-factor.

I'm not even sure the NCAA would care, honestly, other than it being a talking point for them to claim athletes are "students first". I'm guessing it's mostly the athletes themselves who would care.

No arguments there.

> That seems not to be the case everywhere - they might make money but not profits anyway.

While it's mostly true that athletic programs as a whole are not profitable, it's also true that a majority of football and men's basketball programs are profitable[1]:

> > Between 50 and 60 percent of football and men’s basketball programs have reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for each of the nine years reported, while the dollar amount has increased slightly but steadily each year. (3.6)

> It seems uncertain that they actually use the money to fund education.

They don't. They use the money to fund sports programs that aren't profitable, like women's basketball. Women's basketball, in particular, cost FBS schools (in aggregate) about $1.8 million in FY 2014 (though ice hockey isn't far behind at $1.4 million).

Note that I'm not making a judgement here: I don't think we should eliminate women's basketball. But if we're going to argue about what actually costs the school money, we should at least be honest about it.

> Not to mention the fact that they basically exploit the athletes, who aren't always even given a quality education in return.

No qualms there. The NCAA's treatment of athletes is asinine and I'm quite certain we'll view this as a black mark in the history of sports.

1: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Division%20I%...

Because those two sports are largely profitable and often subsidize other sports.

> I've heard many arguments about how its a cultural thing, old people in the west (more weighted towards N-America) are treated as a burden. A burden on the economy, a social burden (damn those annoying grandpa's and grandma's). Isn't that why the 401k and MediCare/MedicAid exist? (excluding the set of population that doesn't qualify for them) to pay them(selves) back for their 40+ years of service? I'd like to hear some fresh arguments/data on why they are treated as such. I'd be grateful to anyone who points me to more reading material on this topic.

Usual disclaimer: This is my opinion, yada yada yada. I am probably wrong on some (if not most) of this.

The elderly, especially in America, have an incredible amount of sway over national politics. Nearly 1/2 of voters are 50 or older [1]. As such, they generate a lot of ire in the US among the less-elderly because it feels like their needs are often met at the expense of the nation.

Medicare, for example, represents a huge amount of US entitlement spending [2] - though this is somewhat of a misleading number because Medicare funds quite a few things besides strictly healthcare expenses (like it funds most physician residencies, IIRC). Coming out in opposition to Medicare is often viewed as a bit of a political death sentence, because your primary goal as a politician is (at least it feels this way sometimes) to pander to older voters.

Additionally, steadfast conservatives tend to be elderly [3], which often puts the elderly in opposition to younger generations. Since politicians tend to listen primarily to their actual voters, you can sort-of understand the young liberal's decree that "things will be better when all the old people die."

Now, none of this is really the elderly's fault (aside from maybe that last part). Medicare is a reaction to an out-of-control healthcare system, and that's not necessarily your grandma's fault. If politicians listen to the people who vote for them, the logical answer would seem to be "go out and vote", not "get angry at the people who do vote."

But, if you're someone who does vote but feels like your voice still isn't being heard, you can probably start to understand some of the animosity.

1: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2011/05/04/U-S-votin...

2: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...

3: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics...

> They're horrible becuase not a lot of effort goes into them.

And not a lot of effort goes into them because there's no money to be made off e.g. a Reddit clone without doing the same things Reddit is doing. A vicious cycle.

> If there's no alternative, then they will drastically improve.

Ah yes, monopolies (virtual or otherwise) are well-known for drastically improving their products.

> Voat is bad becuase of the users. Not becuase it is an alternative to Reddit.

Alternatives are often created by people with strong viewpoints, e.g. Voat.

> If all Reddit users switched to coat, it would have a pretty similar culture and content

This makes a lot of assumptions, namely that the admins of Voat wouldn't quash that (and there's little reason to believe they wouldn't).

> So as soon as they shut down, someone else will make an alternative.

They exist already. They're mostly horrible.

I pretty religiously use DDG, but even then I probably use the !g operator every third search or so.

Reddit's already almost entirely open-source IIRC. People have used it to make alternatives. Check out Voat, you can see the alternative in action (you might not like what you find, though).