The way I see it, at the end of the day we still live in the real world with real, imperfect business/social/etc processes. Unless the entire world is 100% standardized and run by robots, any technological no-code solution would still need to be Turing Complete. At that point, basic computer science principles need to be learned to use it, so all you've done is create another programming language, which again...we already have plenty of those.
Pretty much none of this comment is true besides maybe the mass transit thing, which again depends where you live, if you're a dev in the US (as the OP you responded to said is their profession). This almost strikes me as a Reddit-comment-style parody, so maybe I was whooshed.
Saying you don't "understand" something when it's clearly, obviously understandable with a shred of empathy - especially since you live in the UK and have likely met many people who go to the pub for reasons beyond "reproduction" sounds extremely condescending at best, and malicious at worst. If that wasn't your intention, then yes, I suggest you go back and try to improve your writing style.
Well, no comment on if they're suckers or not, but I think this is a misunderstanding of what a share in a company is. With a share, you own something with actual tangential value, i.e. claim on dividends/voting rights/cash flow/etc. Plus the company itself can actually go and do valuable things and make money - Apple can go and sell a bunch of iPhones and make a ton of money, and then reward their investors through dividends, buybacks, etc. That's not zero sum, there was something of value created and provided to the world. I do understand that in reality many people play the stock market like it's a casino, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still fundamentally different.
People doubled their money on paper in unrealized gains. But since Bitcoin is being sold as a store of value and not as a medium of exchange nowadays, if you want to realize that value you need to sell. Where's that cash coming from? Other buyers, i.e. the next layer of suckers as indicated in OP's post. And if enough people decide to sell, then those doubled/tripled/etc values aren't going to last very long.
Note I'm not saying that it's not possible to win in this system - clearly some people will, at the expense of many others. Perhaps it's my own ignorance, but I genuinely struggle to see how this isn't a zero sum game.
While I do agree with your underlying point that it's likely less common drugs are dangerous, I just want to say that a lot of alcohol addiction and abuse is often completely hidden in plain sight, due to social and cultural acceptance and the way it's portrayed in media.
My ultimate problem is that once this fact becomes apparent to people, many of them tend to go down the rabbit hole of getting what they perceive as the "real" news from blogs/forum posts/opinionated tweets/random guy with a youtube channel. As in, the eventual consequence to mass media having poor rigorous standards of reporting is that people will migrate to sources that have even poorer standards. TBH, I don't really know what the solution to the problem is.
This was in reply to people who are doing things like running errands at the USPS and eating at restaurants, right? What does an employer have anything to do with that?
It’s generally already the wealthy who have maximum flexibility in their schedule. So sure, they can duck out at 3pm for the cheap roads but sounds like those who are on shift based schedules (majority of the working class) will end up having to pay to use these variably tolled roads.
It’s good if you keep in mind who the typical redditor is and if you would take advice from that type of person in real life. One notable example was when I was trying to do some research on cars. The type of things generally recommended seemed almost tailor made for young men at a certain stage of their life (ie budget/sporty/manual/etc). Sure I love that stuff too, but just take a look around in the real world, and it’s pretty clear that the recommendations you’re getting are super limited in scope.
Employees have lives right? Some of them might want a big wedding, new house, new car, nice vacation? These are all totally normal aspirations. If you’re working at a company where your boss doesn’t even acknowledge your humanity then your problems probably run deeper than this. Do these types of managers also want input on how employees spend their paycheck?
All indications are that they promoted themselves as "democratizing finance" and being "for the people" (quotes are the exact words used by Robinhood to describe themselves). But as you mentioned, they were still contractually beholden to larger powers, and when push came to shove, they acted entirely within their own self interest. They lied to our face to gain business. Not only that, but they continue to lie to the media (not making it clear that this was a liquidity issue). Sure, in retrospect, it's evident that it was heading this way all along, but just because a fraud is perpetuated out in the open doesn't make it any less of a fraud.
Sometimes you’re caught between a rock and a hard place. That doesn’t absolve you of the direct consequences of the actions you take. Perhaps a better question to ask is how did they allow themselves to end up in this position where they have absolutely no choice but to make a poor decision in the first place? Were there no adults at the wheel leading up to this? Is this not a sign of an entirely broken system?
Just because it's in Apple's self interest doesn't mean Tim Cook is wrong--in fact, he is 100% spot on. In fact, maybe it's a good thing that there is a corporation as large as Apple that can throw their weight behind regulating social media behemoths, that means it will be taken far more seriously by the public.
IMO, it's similar to something like institutional racism. There probably are very few people who are openly and unashamedly racist at the highest levels of power (although sadly not zero) - but all it takes is the current players acting in their own self interest to keep perpetuating an extremely unfair and totally rigged system. Basically what MLK described in his Birmingham jail letter. (and to be clear, I think both of us are on the same page)
But I would say - their underlying intentions are absolutely and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters is that they acted in a way that boosted Wall Street at the expense of retail traders, and thus they are perpetuating a corrupt system, whether they feel like they are or not.
Even some of the worst possible HDHP plans that employees can get have a max out of pocket of $10k/yr (pre-tax) with HSA. So you can say in the worst case OP makes $400k and pays $10k in insurance if he has some major health issues to be addressed. Or maybe just say he makes $390k and has totally free insurance? Even if he’s spending something ridiculous like $50k/yr on a family of eight’s insurance he’s still way better off.
Slightly tangential, might be common knowledge by now but just wanted to throw out there in case anyone doesn't know - if you want the discounts but not the tracking, enter in your area code plus Jenny's number from the famous song (867-5309). This should work at most chains in the US.
If you're pulling a gigantic salary at one of these companies, you almost certainly have healthcare, generous PTO, and generous maternity offerings as part of the package too.
Not OP, but I suppose the implication is that you would continue to do some sort of work, even if just random jobs to supplement your income. It would probably be hard to go a decade without earning a single penny (of course I'm assuming this is all happening well before traditional retirement age).
This is pretty cool, and seems like it would be fun to mess around with. I loathe to be overly negative since I realize I'm probably not the smartest person in the room so I might have overlooked something, but...
1) My findings are that you can't ever predict future stock performance based on historical data, no matter how many tests/trials/algorithms you run. The reason for this is because we, as mere mortal humans, just simply can't predict the future -- no matter how much we try to obfuscate this fact with math and data science, unless you're modeling every single thing that's happening on the planet at the same time and have created a singularity or something, you just can't. This means there is always something potentially lurking around the corner that can absolutely destroy your returns. Now, can you have success in the short/medium term? Maybe. You have a chance to come out a winner in Vegas too.
2) The difference between simulated trades and real trades is actually quite significant. Every real trade you make on the market, no matter how small and/or insignificant you think it is, actually does have a real impact on the market. This is where I find it typically goes sideways when people come up with algorithms based on historical data. An analogy for this is voting -- you might feel that your one single vote doesn't matter, but the fact that everyone voted is everything. You can't easily simulate this as far as I can think of.
I don’t see any value in being dogmatic about it one way or another. Personally I’d just shorten it to “Live your life.” It will mean different things to different people, but perhaps that is ok.
Not the original poster, but plenty of people have higher priority obligations in life outside of their job that would make it impossible to move. Family, health, etc.
I'm not trying to personally attack you either, but one trend I have noticed on HN is many comments acting like everybody is an unencumbered 25-year old American CS grad for whom the world is their oyster, and not quite "understanding" that others might be stuck in the real world due to circumstances not quite of their own choosing. A lot of which leads to innocent comments like yours pushing readers further into despair and less likely to ask for help.
A counter argument is that if Google doesn’t care enough to manipulate its reviews because the stakes are too low, then they might also turn a blind eye to restaurants, businesses, and other listings manipulating the system themselves (again assuming it’s too small time for Google to care).
But I don’t have a better solution either, my wife and I have followed almost your exact same pattern of relying on Yelp until it became untrustworthy and then Google Reviews (which is what I still use now).
There is a separate, higher IRS max for employee+employer contribution (this is why many jobs can offer 401k matching), and that number is somewhere around $55k these days. But there is a loophole—when you are your own employer, i.e. self employed, you can contribute that full amount to your own 401k.
If by common man you mean Han Chinese who live in major urban areas - then yes, your observation is mostly correct. But the expense seems to be the systematic oppression of rural populations and ethnic minorities (Uighurs, Tibetans, etc). The virtual (and physical) enslavement already exists [1], it's not really some hypothetical.
I am no CBP fan either, but has anyone considered the case that these are counterfeit AirPods in counterfeit OnePlus earbud boxes? If you look at the opened box picture in the CBP memo, you will notice the earbuds do NOT match the picture on the OnePlus box and look much much more similar to actual AirPods.
Negotiating power seems slightly tangential to the main issue, I don't think that take-it-or-leave-it negotiating tactics are inherently bad. When you buy food from the supermarket, you either pay the price they are charging or you leave - there's no negotiation.
But in that scenario, you can always walk out and walk into a competing grocery store and try to find a better price. The fact that you can walk is what makes it a competitive scenario, and not an anti-trust one. The question here is, is being able to walk away and use an Android (or other smartphone) product an equivalent (thus fair competition) - or is software in the iOS ecosystem unique enough that not being allowed to participate unless you follow arcane rules is unfair abuse of a monopoly.
I feel like the problem may be that we have a distorted view of "success" and what it means. Success is much more than a one-dimensional goal of earning more money. Are you really considered successful if that's all that you accomplished? Success itself encompasses many of the goals espoused in the article, such as having quality relationships and being able to take time for yourself. I think it's a perspective problem. You aren't successful just because you did well in your career. There's much more to it than that.