consz

Using a tool available to you is not bad just because it would be bad if the other side could also use it.

Absolutely much higher in HFT. I worked in HFT, my 3rd year bonus (at age 25) was 1.9m as maybe a p75 member of a high performing team. Even the median, across the front office at that firm, for 2-3 years out was 600k-1m.

Printing money only leads to inflation if you are full employment/resource utilization. Otherwise the money just facilitates transactions that wanted to occur anyways but didn't have the financial capital to do so; you can always hoover the money back up through taxes afterwards without realizing hyperinflation. Why do you think Japan, Europe, China, US, etc. have been able to print such a significant amount in the last 10 years without the corresponding inflation? Why is the US pushing a 2T stimulus bill without worrying about "how will they pay for it" during a credit crisis today?

I keep my expenses at 20% of my post-tax income, in part to avoid any impact from deep or prolonged crises.

This is silly. My professional cohort doesn't have anyone working sixty hour weeks, and these are people making mid-6 to mid-7 figures. Lot more to life than working, buddy.

Is there actually a difference? If he had memorized every detail in those documents, that would have been okay -- but taking the documents isn't? Is the former only okay because it seems practically unlikely for one human to memorize everything?

This currently exists, but for student loans.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8502456/

I think it's an interesting phenomenon.

Why is it we "definitely cannot" say that in general? That's not obvious to me at first glance.

Prior to the civil war, slaves were the single largest asset, by value, that America held -- more than it's land or agricultural exports; more than it's railroads, banks, or factories. Cotton was the number one export across all of America, not just the south, at that time. And it's not like this value was destroyed by the civil war -- post-slavery institutions were extraordinarily effective at restoring or keeping pre-slavery conditions long after the end of the civil war. The slaves may not have physically built most of America -- but it's silly to suggest America's wealth isn't largely, perhaps primarily, born from the fruits of slavery.

For sources, feel free to examine any modern history book.

Light signals in an optic fiber bounce off the walls (repeatedly, frequently) of the cable they're in -- the actual physical path the light is taking in this case is approx. 1.5x the path of the cable itself.

>For the massacre, the killer actually hated Trump.

That doesn't disprove that he was right wing.

>For the bombing, consider this: people who want to actually hurt their targets, rather than running a false-flag operation, tend to succeed.

Proof?

As someone who personally makes high seven figures and who's met dozens of people of 9, 10-figure net worth -- I think it's ridiculous that anyone thinks becoming phenomenally wealthy is not overwhelmingly determined by luck. None of the rich people I've met have any notable characteristics that explain their "success" -- although certainly, some have convinced themselves it was due to some quality of theirs that they could control (and not just that, for example, they were lucky to get into the right team, at the right firm, at the right time, etc.).

I assume people who believe wealth and success of individuals can be explained by predictable qualities or behaviors of that person have simply never met a rich person in their life.

>People die on the list to get treatment.

This doesn't appear to be any different in the US, though -- people die often in the US from either waiting to get enough money for copays or from having their treatment be rejected by their insurance enough times until they die.

>The only requirement is insurance, which the vast majority of people have.

However, the vast majority of people do not have access to $8000.

>you can’t buy houses around the world (and staff them) in a whim. you can’t go to davos and mingle with the true global power brokers. you can affect social change but only on a small perhaps local scale.

I can't imagine any of these things increasing my happiness (or even be particularly interesting to me).

I think it's sometimes hard to understand how quickly marginal utility of money decreases. As someone who makes high seven figures, I have genuinely no idea how more money could possibly affect my happiness -- there's just no appreciable difference between making 5m and 500m to me.

I'm interested in the tapeworm pictures.

What do you think was omitted that would change that quote?

Could you explain why someone should believe official sources over those his reporting?

>If you're confident and in fact the entire industry is moving in the wrong direction, then you should probably invest as much as you can afford in an airline that is offering simpler plans.

I think people should be heavily criticized for making arguments like this -- it's entirely done in bad faith. You're presenting a fairy tale, a piece of advice that is completely un-actionable for a huge majority of people. What is this person supposed to do, when

(a) No such airline exists

(b) What sort of marginal impact can <$1000 (presumably the most that can be afforded for this by the majority of people) even have in achieving actual change?

If anything, complaining about it to others (online or elsewhere) probably has more efficacy than doing the above.

>The way I see it, it should be modeled as {both-boys, boy-and-girl, both-girls}; by telling me that one of the kids is a boy, you eliminated one possibility out of three, leaving us with 1/2 as an answer.

This would be like saying "When I buy a lottery ticket, the only outcomes are {lose lottery, win lottery}; therefore, I have a 50% chance of winning the lottery."

The difference is that boy-girl is twice as likely to occur of those three choices.

Can you expand more on what direction your "team" is researching towards?

You don't need eyes and a brain to observe, a photon can be an observer.

What does a rich person actually lose (ie. materially how is their life different) when they're taxed at a higher rate?

Wouldn't it be easier to train astronauts to be artists than to train artists to be astronauts?

Multiple HFT companies would be top 10 on that list.

First, I have no argument.

Secondly, that detail was mentioned because, as I am neither a woman or a POC, my original question was less likely to be coming from a place of personal bias (“talking my book”, so to speak).

I'm not sure where you got the impression I was speaking for other white males, as I don't think I was speaking about anything at all in my post.

"It normalises racism and sexism" still seems pretty deep in the territory of thought experiment, so I'm still having trouble seeing exactly what are the human consequences of this -- could you give me explicit examples of how this fund negatively impacts individual people (whether or not they are the targeted beneficiaries of the fund)?

As a white male -- presumably the victim of the fund mentioned in the OP -- could you explain to me what is bad about the way this fund is set up? I don't mean ideologically, but empirically what you think are negative consequences of it.