The comments here are interesting...Looking at your question from a different angle, yes, of course it's possible to be a profitable algo trader - set your first investment to buy("SPY") and do nothing else for 20 years. What you are asking though depends entirely on your risk tolerance and what you are benchmarking your strategy against.
I wonder if part of this is because of pressure from investors. I heard an investor once comment about how they don't want to pay for a team to learn on the job, which I found ironic given the VC space implicitly invests in innovation, which is creating new opportunities that have lots of unknowns.
The zero sum delusion assumes someone only gets rich by taking from another. The delusion is that this is the ONLY way to generate wealth. When you create new markets and new products, the economy grows and everyone is better off. When the economy doesn't grow, the only way one person is better off is someone else is less well off. These are two different cases.
When GPD growth slows, the only way to net personal gain is through another's loss. If you assume well being does have some sort of financial price tag tied to it, then this makes sense that someone's well being would go down as another's goes up, as the net for the whole economy doesn't change.
Yes, salary is paid for with labor, but a reduced rate that is offset with compensation in the form of stock options. You're correct that it is taxed, and the capital gains rate is lower than the salary tax rate. My comment was more an observation, but the thought hadn't been fully fleshed out.
This sounds reasonable, however that subsidy/gain is already paid for with the employee's labor, which cannot be recovered. Paying taxes on what is essentially a guaranteed gain sounds reasonable, but when it is a gain earned by putting in labor over several years, I'm not sure this is the best solution.
So if you exercise an option to buy a stock for $1, you have to pay taxes on the stock's current value, but if you had bought the stock outright at $1, you don't have to pay capital gains until you sell? That's absurd
So what is defined as good work? That reminds me of managers who say they only want the best. The best varies greatly from role to role and company to company.
This seems like the open source licensing equivalent of mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons. If Facebook were to aggressively pull the rug out from a competitor because of React licensing, I think the effects for the industry as a whole would be far worse than the threat some startup posed to them.
Just curious if someone could give the tldr version of this vs graphql. I'm familiar with django, but not the rest framework, and have a basic understanding of graphql but am not really sure how they compare.
FWIW, considering half the Democratic Party wanted to nominate a candidate who wanted to reform healthcare AGAIN (expansion of medicare for all), that should be an indicator of the quality of this piece of legislation.
What you said sounds perfectly reasonable, if you have a normal functioning government that executes the law in a normal and reasonable way. The US was founded, however, partly on the idea that laws are executed by humans, and humans are fallible, and if the laws of our country were ever abused, they couldn't unjustly damage or harm the lives of the citizens subject to those laws. With the current proposal regarding terror watch lists, Donald Trump wants to put all Muslims on a terror watch list just because of their religion. Does that sound fair to you? Should those Muslims have their right to self defense taken away because of their religion? This is what our Constitution was designed to protect.
Yes, but production and throughput capacity, along with logistics of moving crops from the farm to a storage elevator are things that still need to be considered. Today's most advanced combines can harvest 10,000 bushels of corn per hour...you would need hundreds of robots in a field to even come close to that level of efficiency. One combine also needs about five semi-trailers driving around the clock to get all of the grain out of the field and into a storage elevator without slowing down the whole operation. Letting harvesting robots unload themselves into a truck one at a time would take weeks. There are some big changes that would need to take place to achieve what you are talking about.
Protections for consumers that apparently comes at a much higher price point, which some consumers may not wish to pay. How is that protection for them?
One thing I didn't see mentioned in the post was an attempt to understand macro economic forces are affected by BI. I understand there are limitations to what can be studied in a controlled environment, and teasing out cause and effect of macro forces can be very, very difficult, but any sort of R&D done at a company normally focuses on reducing the largest risks first, to determine if the project should move forward. Looking at how individual well being and happiness are affected by a basic income seems like an (almost) no brainer as to what the outcome will be - generally positive for those individuals. Maybe this is something that is also being looked at by the team, and just didn't get mentioned in a brief blog post, but I would hope this research is at least thinking about how to address and manage these largest risks first, instead of the opposite.
When this happens, costs for virtually everything will more or less go to zero, because we can make humans to make more humans to make everything else in our society that costs money. Try to imagine a society where virtually everything is free...visualize walking around and getting free coffee from Starbucks, free rides from Uber, free meals three times a day, free healthcare, free housing, etc. If everything is free, there isn't really a need for work and income at all. We're much further off from what you are suggesting than I think many proponents of AI realize, but this would be the other side of that coin.
From a marketing point of view, labeling is only going to take away a value-add advantage that non-GMO products have over unlabeled items. I am aware of several GMO free companies that are growing by leaps and bounds, and can charge 20% more by VOLUNTARILY labeling their products as GMO free. If all food products are forced to label themselves as GMO or GMO free, this price premium isn't so great because the cost of all food products goes up to pay for the labeling + FDA oversight. In addition, if you ran consumer marketing A/B testing to compare two products labeled GMO free vs GMO and GMO free vs no label, it might actually show that more GMO free products are sold when displayed against a no label product rather than a GMO label product. Finally, mandatory labeling for nutritional products hasn't been proven to dramatically affect health outcomes of a population, so it seems like the outcome of a GMO labeling requirement wouldn't be too different from that.
I recently updated from Sublime Text 2 to ST3. One thing I loved about version 2 was that it was insanely fast. Version 3 is significantly slower. Can anyone point me to any resources that might help me determine why the slowdown?
That's the issue with public transportation in the US. Cars, gas, and land are cheap, therefore personal transportation is cheaper than public transportation. When it's more affordable to drive into a city and park for free than take a train/bus and be limited to their schedules and locations, personal transportation wins every time, like in the OP's anecdote. Personally, I think this is a wonderful thing, but I also know public transportation services in other countries are much better at overcoming these problems than in the US.
Not exactly. The real world is far too complex to cover all edge cases, which is why we have human judges to evaluate cases on an individual basis. Leaving these decisions up to a computer is essentially subjecting ourselves to rule by computers, which is incredibly concerning.
The idea of a computer deciding whether someone is guilty or not is a scary prospect. This is a bandwagon I'm not so sure the government should be so eager to jump on.
To play devil's advocate, pretending to know about Quantum Computing, or any highly technical subject, when applying for a job is extremely misleading. This isn't too different.
>>Though what I do think will happen is an erosion of their lead where they go from the sole 800lb gorrilla in the west to being one of many with automakers coming into their own offering self driven taxi style service on what will probably be a subscription model (like how we have monthly payments for cars today).
Either this, or I could easily seeing aggregator apps, similar to the many that have popped up to manage multiple social media accounts, appearing to help drivers and riders manage both Uber and Lyft accounts.
You are using the arguments of supply and demand and free market economics where it is convenient, and saying the market fails higher education in other posts where it is convenient. Which is it?
There is a line of thinking by many in this thread that if two parties enter into a transaction, and one party has significantly more wealth than the other party, the party with significantly more wealth is automatically guilty of exploiting the party with less wealth, regardless of how said wealth was accumulated. While this may be the case in a small number of transactions, it forgoes the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. It also isn't really a productive line of thought in trying to find a solution...assuming guilt/exploitation by those who are better off than us does not make us any better off.
I can't speak for the OP, but he may not be talking about the actual law or it's basis, but the execution of it, which has been a fiasco. We're 3 years into it, and insurance agents and "qualified" healthcare navigators still don't know what they're doing because it's so complicated. Never mind the security issues and complete lack of usability that is the healthcare.gov marketplace.