mfringel

I disagree with you.

If someone is wearing a Boston Bruins jersey in public, I think it's reasonable to believe that they're a fan of the Boston Bruins hockey team. I _could_ ask them if that's the case, or if they're a New York Rangers fan that's wearing it ironically, but that would (probably) be wasted effort, because I have a good idea of the answer I'm going to get.

It seems reasonably straightforward to apply that to other team insignia, especially one that is so clearly affiliated with a specific political leader, and their political outlook.

There are plenty of professions where someone has to "read a room/person/situation" before having a chance to interact with people. As an example, many types of consulting require someone to "take the pulse of a room" before directly interacting with any one person. To be sure, there's a price for being wrong, but there's also a reward for being right.

Your elected officials own the messaging on your political brand. You don't actually get a choice on this one.

If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.

"There's plenty of blame to go around" and its equivalents are semantically null.

Are you familiar with the output of a typical credit report?

I'm curious as to why you're focusing on bankruptcy, when there are a significant amount of other signals banks use, which do not age off in the same way.

Is a bankruptcy greater than >10 years ago statistically a red flag? What do you think would be a better term?

The government has several interests, beyond lenders. The government enforces the lenders abilities to claim debts. It is also in the government's interest to allow people to get back on their feet if their finances crater, because taking someone out of the financial system indefinitely is not productive.

Someone, somewhere, could be abusing any system. That, in and of itself, is not a disqualifying feature of a system.

"Egregious" implies that it's unreasonable. Can you say more on that?

So, you didn't look to see what they discussed under that heading, to verify that your judgment was correct?

I think "second vs. minute" might be into "distinction without a difference" territory. Sure, per-second will definitionally help at the margins, but I'm dubious about the amount of money it will actually save.

That all being said, it can enable a bunch of interesting things (e.g. more interesting stuff with AWS Lambda), and I look forward to see what per-second billing becomes an enabling technology for.

[IANAL] There's no trial yet, so it's about proving probable cause to go before a grand jury for an indictment.

Sure. There's not much to say beyond "It is very expensive to do Eminent Domain takings in the US, especially in areas where market values for property are high."

The US is not a place where the state actually owns all the property, nor a place where the state has an indefeasible right of first refusal to purchase all property for a nominal sum.

It's also a testament to strong property rights.

I think there are better perspectives to look at it from than "replacing local commuter rail".

1. What commutes will it suddenly make practical?

2. What air traffic will it replace?

Capital does not need to follow an immigration process in order to move to a new country, beyond a known-fixed cost in customs duties, and typically not even then.

Labor can't run away as fast, so it's easier to tax more.

A different and likely larger population that's more likely based on need.

In the event of a disaster, I assert the thing you're sat-solving for is "as many people as possible getting enough of a constrained resource to survive long enough to get out of the disaster condition". In my mind, that's both good and compassionate.

Theoretically, you're completely correct.

...and then Air Canada sent down more flights to get people out.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/r-e-p-e-a-t----air-canada-o...

In the event of irregular operations, the supply of seats is somewhat elastic.

Define "rational". If you mean "Can someone justify those beliefs to themselves through a logical chain, while allowing for personal belief systems", then yes, of course, there are plenty of non-evil reasons a rational person could hold those.

However, you can still have irreconcilable differences in belief systems at an existential level.

Your elected representatives own your brand. To some extent, it doesn't matter what you believe, for purposes of the label you adopt.

Who has that left you with?

In rugby, except for a couple of lines on the field, one inch doesn't strictly matter more than another, within the bounds of the rules.

In american football, one inch anywhere on the field can make the difference between four more downs or having to kick the ball away.

Alternately, they have a motor vehicle and use it sparingly.

"Saint or GTFO" is a losing debate strategy with an aware counterparty.

To amplify that point, a large amount of finance malfeasance involves doing alterations on a daily basis, and an enforced vacation foils that.

Two years ago, this would have been called "growth-hacking". What changed?

You seem to be asserting that anyone who owns any stock is completely aligned with the interests of the respective corporation, regardless of proportionality.

To wit, If I own (say) $5k of Amazon stock as the result of being invested in a mutual fund, that is not sufficient cause for me to take time out of my day to call my representatives and actively lobby for Amazon.

You are completely theoretically correct.

The Ministry of Statistics has noted your datapoint, and thanks you for your contribution.

A house is an asset that also provides shelter services. In addition, if you buy a house with a mortgage, you're only putting down a portion of the house's cost, while you will realize all of the capital gains.

Contrast with owning stocks where you (in the typical buy-and-hold case) have to keep 100% of your money in the stock in order to keep owning the stock.

Right now, where I am, the sky is grey.

When there's a really big storm coming in, it's an even darker grey.

The sky is, in fact, sometimes blue, but would your statement about Canada's housing bubble be untrue on a cloudy rainy day?

You're missing the possibility that your definition of making the world a worse place is their definition of making the world a better place.