bb2018

Perhaps it would indulge the conspiracy theories too much - but I'd kinda love to see an actual breakdown of how something like this could ever make him money. Think of the huge amount of money he has lost from this in the other businesses he owns and think of all the money he invested in this for decades he could have invested in other lucrative industries.

How much would he need from this supposed plan to even breakeven? Thirty billion?

Yeah - Id love to know if there are any cases where someone was sick enough that they were treated, recovered, and then got sick enough they need actual treatment again.

I feel like the source of the virus has become too politicized in most reporting and I'd really like someone with expertise to weigh in on what the unknowns truly are. The Newsweek source is a professor who says "it is not supported at all by available data" but there is obviously no data or evidence of any theory. You could easily say "Claim that Covid-19 came from Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market completely unfounded".

To be clear, if I had to bet I would lean towards betting it came from a random bat/human interaction, but from either perspective seems like a problem of probability and guesswork.

NY still has their old number of "confirmed deaths" which they were using previously and continue to report as a separate number from "probable deaths".

The article linked to doesn't mention that but what NY is doing makes sense. It lets us see the general trends using the old methodology while still being smart about counting going forward.

It is very open and every state + country should do something similar.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronav...

This number included "probable" deaths that had not been included before. This is an improvement in seeing the totality of the situation. However, if you want to track change you can see deaths by the old methodology are level:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1250917711586168835

Not exactly a scandal there...I would hope that a congressional staffer would handle all mass communications with constituents.

This is pretty interesting. I think it may be slightly overconfident in the sense that the data is still not super granular and there aren't too many other data points of comparison (geographic restaurant data, work data, etc.). However, so much data reports viruses being more likely to spread indoors and in close quarters so the subway makes perfect sense.

It is also very scary. I currently live in a fairly remote town of 3000 people. There have been a couple Covid cases here, but it is pretty easy to see how even with the most loose social distancing policies the R0 here would be lower than a fairly stringent policy in NYC. I used to live in Manhattan and the number of people I would be a few feet from just walking out of my apartment, walking one block to a grocery store, and coming back up is more people than I am within a few feet of here every week even when restaurants are open. I'm not sure how big cities solve this.

Do you have a link to that? I'd love to know more about why this would be the case.

This is extremely ridiculous. It would be like if every time you paid your taxes your forms said "Please make your check out to the order of Donald Trump"

I'm not too sure reinfection is as important mathematically as some think when you realize the goal will be to operate below a threshold of cases, not eliminate covid entirely.

If there are zero people who cannot tell two colors apart, they should have the same name.

If there is at least one person who cannot tell two colors apart, they should have different names.

A) Saying the "last three months" is intellectually disingenuous because the virus hadn't even been introduced to most states three months ago. I'm sure in some areas more people have died in the last three months from ski accidents but that is irrelevant. Name one state where you honestly believe the next three months will have comparable cases of food-borne deaths to Covid-19 deaths.

B) I'm not disagreeing with you.

C) People should not be at an in-person Easter Sunday. I realize a percentage of churches decided to not close. That being said, wanting to eat bats is not comparable to wanting to practice religion.

If the lettuce killed people and then everyone who interacted with the people who at the lettuce also got sick and the economy had to be shut down the United States would strictly ban selling lettuce immediately.

If China can enforce the largest lockdown ever and enforce a one-child policy for decades, they can easily ban live animals at markets.

I feel like it is completely speculative as you said and I am not conspiratorial at all. Because China is so secretive and has already been known to punish people for reporting on this it seems likely that these theories will only increase (I mean, how could you ever prove them wrong given China's actions)

Agreed. "Flattening the curve", at least in its original meaning, has to do with the new case total. Additionally, it is very hard to detect recent changes in a state's results on the cumulative chart.

This poll was conducted by a very conservative group and interviewed as many republicans as democrats. It made no effort to adjust for likely voters so I don't see the point of rewarding this.

Perhaps I am heartless, but what percent of people believe Amazon should not ship non-essential items? I would guess very low.

Amazon has prioritized essential items - but this was due to a surge against their capacity and it is a positive sign they can now handle other items.

The article uses the example that Amazon is selling bowling balls. Should Amazon stop selling bowling balls anymore than Bowling.com should?

Buybacks serve the same role as dividends. A company takes money they have no need for and instead of giving it to investors in the form of dividends (which is taxed) they buyback stock. As a shareholder you don't end up with cash but the value of the stock increases by the same amount but there is no tax.

I own Google stock. They don't have a dividend at all and buyback massive amounts of stock. It is just efficient. If the government taxed buybacks then they would likely start giving a dividend, as people would prefer deciding what to do with the money.

One additional issue is that company's have chosen often times to do stock buybacks even when taking on debt. This is because they can borrow money cheaply and believe the buybacks are good for the value of the shareholders overall. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for anyone - but in times like this it puts a real stress on them that may even bankrupt them.

I think it is a bit of question of risk. In theory I'd like the company's I own to be prepared for an emergency, but I' also be annoyed if I invested in a company and they just let the money sit in a bank account for years instead of finding a way to return profits to the shareholders immediately.

This will obviously be studied for years but I imagine plotting taking "total deaths in region X for time period Y - total deaths in region X given comparable previous time period Y" will give a pretty good estimate of the complete effect of Covid. It won't be able to pinpoint individual cases but it seems like a very simple and unbiased way of getting the complete delta in deaths due to Covid.

Does anyone have a good explanation for the statistics of these types of data.

For instance, I've heard keep six feet away. However, I assume six feet is the distance where the chance of contracting is <0.1%, at five feet it is 1%, etc. etc. Nothing is black and white.

Is the chance of contracting it from a surface meaningful? Or simply the equivalent to "it is possible to catch it from someone 15 feet away even if extremely slim"

I don't get this. I do not think she is being corrupt in any way by why invest/trade on such a high-profile stock (or allow your investment team to trade on such a high-profile stock) when you are arguably the most powerful Democrat in the country? She (and her team) must know that it would create a headline at some point so why not just invest in index funds or general tech index funds?

I think it is a bit misleading. A college may reasonably come to the conclusion that a certain percentage of their alumni contributions are because of a high-profile sports program. Additionally, at many schools alumni networking revolves around large football and other sporting events.

I admit I do not have the numbers to back it up, so attack it all you want, but it is undeniable a high amount of social cohesion is created by these sporting events at many schools. Is it ideal - no - but like marketing, it is often about what people want rather than what they say they want.

This was very surprising to me! Canada is also extremely high at 97%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

I sort of wish there was more polls on issues like this. What percentage, of the general population, thinks it is beneficial to have security cameras share information with the police?

My house was broken into a couple years ago. Windows smashed and the place vandalized. I felt violated for months. I had no security footage then and the police said it was a waste of time to dust for fingerprints. I wish I had Ring then - I do now. I am happy now that thieves know when they approach my house now they are being filmed and shared with police.

I know the Hacker News crowd is very against this - in a very out of touch way - but I am extremely pro being able to share footage from my private residence with law enforcement and am happy local law enforcement may finally have some tools to solve repeat burglaries.

Elizabeth Warren is the author of a book called The Two-Income Trap - which is mostly apolitical and talks about an interesting economic/statistical paradox.

If a man and woman make equal amounts in a marriage, they are twice as likely to undergo financially hardship as a marriage where the male is the sole breadwinner. This is because almost any couple is going to budget more than 50% of their total income regardless, so a single firing or loss of job can lead to financial hardship. It is paradoxical because a second income should provide an additional safety net, but because of the way people budget having two points of failure (even if the failure isn't as devastating) increases the odds.

I am unable to get into the original article, but I wonder if it is always the case that men's stress increases if wife earns more than 40% or if it is the case that men's stress increases when the wife earns more than 40% and less than 60%.

I'm a really naive when it comes to tax law and a lot of economics statistics - but I'm having trouble seeing this.

If I am a waiter who made 35,000 in reported income and 10,000 in unreported income I made 45,000. I can take the standard deduction on 35,000 and in all statistics used by think tanks/reporters/politicians I will weight in the category of those who made ~35,000. Am I missing something?

Adjacent to this, has anyone ever seen statistics/estimates on income percentiles of illegal/underreported income? I've always wondered about this as a huge portion of jobs is based off tips or cash transactions (servers, contractors, maids, landscapers) and I can't imagine all these people report 100% of their income.

What percent of of the US population would you estimate doesn't report at least 10 thousand dollars a year?

This is clearly not true - if you are making that much and are a constant (but not even especially frugal) saver you will have 10M by the time you retire. The top 1% includes people of all ages - including people collecting paychecks their whole life - not just people who are in their 30s.

Of course, in 20 years 10M will not mean as much, but nonetheless it is important to remember 20% of the population is at or near retirement age.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/investing/retirement-calculator

I sort of wonder this too. The logic seems simple. Companies are attacked for being bad for the environment. In ways such as fossil fuel consumption it is impossible for them to change. However, in ways such as making packaging slightly lighter or of different materials it is easy to change. Companies support existing environmental groups fixated on fringe issues as a way of appearing progressive while the main issue (which would be costly) goes on touch.

As a resident of California who has seen plastic straws be banned (which are highly visible but small) while millions of other types of waste are allowed I suspect it is the case.

It is a complete waste of time in many ways but every once in a while I will log on and take a couple surveys while watching a rerun of something before bed. I used to do some survey design/analysis in academia and sometimes it is interesting to see what or how weird the surveys are. I would guess my hourly rate is about $3 and I used that very small amount to buy splurge on cheap useless stuff on Amazon.