wkyle

I don't think that it makes a ton of sense to draw an ideological difference between shorting and buying in the secondary market, where buying is 'Investing' and short selling isn't. Both are valid contributors to price discovery. The initial investment already happened, you're not actually adding capital to the company when buying shares on an exchange.

No, NW border of Excelsior is 280, so definitely not north of Monterrey Blvd. Broad strokes neighborhood is Twin Peaks area. That part of Twin Peaks is heavily influenced by historically affluent planned developments. Some of the more well known ones listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Residence_Parks.

I am not familiar with the history of some of the other planned tracts there but this map seems to suggest that area is mostly composed of master planned communities. https://sfrichmondreview.com/2023/01/10/local-author-and-his...

Note that nonfarm payroll is still seasonally adjusted - 156105k vs. 156306k adjusted. The FRED series for NFP with and without sesonality: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15LPE

> The answer to that more likely has to do with some very broad phenomenon: capital has been accumulating due to increases in energy availability. Human talent (that turns capital into something actual) is plateauing due to slowing of population growth.

> As the world became more stable over time, the default risk also lessened over time

I think these are both saying the same thing from two sides - the default risk going down doesn't really mean anything in isolation. The implied context is the default risk goes down for the same rate of return (or the rate of return goes up for the same default risk).

I'm not sure if this claim really makes sense - if water districts are incentivized by income, and if high users really have such inelastic water consumption, then wouldn't the water district continue to raise the tiered rates at the highest level?

Thus, under these assumptions, the current tiered rates should accurately reflect the marginal price that the wasteful users are willing to pay, and any rise in price would result in a decrease in consumption.

If the intention of this idea is to allocate reasonable consumption to each person at low prices and quickly increase prices beyond that, then I don't think this wouldn't be a bad thing.

Tradeable quotas can be an effective way to protect a common resource.

The parent comment suggests a progressively priced system that would presumably allow for cheap consumption of water at small quantities. I think the comments here discarding this idea by claiming price sensitivity doesn't exist for wealthy people are unimaginative.

I'm not totally sold on on the idea, but it is very possible to create a tiered pricing system that makes domestic water waste unsustainably expensive. The price required to deter consumption may be absurdly high, but demand elasticity will always exist at high enough prices.

A cyclist must be courteous for you not to kill them? The instigator on an unsafe pass is the person passing, not the person getting passed.

It's certainly possible that even with the volatility smile markets still underprice unlikely events, but high returns from a tail-heding fund during a black swan event hardly provides any evidence. Regardless of pricing, the expectation of the strategy is infrequent high returns and frequent poor or negative returns. Whether the market accurately prices these events also depends on how bad returns are during years without anomalous market conditions, and the intervals between fat-tail events.

To give a brief counter to the Taleb/Spitznagel Empirica Kurtosis strategy, the pricing of deep out of the money options is systematically overvalued in relation to the Black-Scholes model, suggesting that the market correctly prices in fat tails.

The volatility smile pattern describes the 'overvalued' nature of these options, and the SKEW index tracks their pricing.

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

https://www.cboe.com/us/indices/dashboard/skew/

Why would a larger bicycle be less eco-friendly than a small, intricate bicycle with many bespoke components?

Transportation infrastructure investment is fairly zero-sum. A city full of self-driving cars is only marginally better than a city full of regular cars. The ‘smart approach’ is to reduce car friendliness in cities and rather invest in public transit and walk/bikeability.

On a more feasible scale, a similar idea could be better air filtration/ventilation. Better ventilation in homes or offices to decrease CO2 levels could be an easier way to achieve a similar effect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/health/conference-room-ai...

That may sound like an easy fix, but easing the ability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy court would necessarily require higher interest rates on new loans (sans increased subsidization of student loans). That may be a palatable tradeoff, but I suspect most students would prefer cheap borrowing.

Prophet is just a specific forecasting procedure.

This is a common anecdotal example of Simpson's Paradox. Even if work performance is positively correlated with college ranking, a subset of selected grads can have a negative relationship with the same variables.

The mechanism is the selection criteria. Presumably, college ranking and demonstrated aptitude are both metrics used for hiring. Thus, if the variables are evaluated additively, and the examined firm occupies a single tier of the ranking+aptitude space, the hired employees will have a ranking/aptitude that falls along a negatively sloping line, similar to a budget constraint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox

The lack of personalized ads on TikTok is really surprising - the recommendation engine must have some of the best targeting data out of any social media platform. It still seems like Facebook ads are far more demographically and psychographically targeted though

The Bugaboos in Eastern BC are well known for having rubber-eating porcupines. Standard practice when leaving a car at the trailhead for a while is to wrap the underside in chickenwire.

https://www.mountainproject.com/photo/105869551/porcupine-ba...

The pillar experiment from the paper isn't fully explained in the article. The instructions stated "You may alter the structure however you want".

The experiment was run with two groups, both of which were given equal costs on addition – "Each piece that you add costs ten cents". There was also a group given a 'subtraction-cue' where the instructions mentioned that "removing pieces is free and costs nothing". Increase from 41% to 61% use of subtractive method.

There was a cost to addition, so the optimal solution for both groups was removal of the pillar.

There seems to be a lot of dismissal in this thread about the consequences of a Constitutionally-legal road to dictatorship.

The historical precedent to this concern is the Nazification of Germany. After Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Enabling Act[1] was passed as an amendment to the constitution. This gave Hitler the power to pass unconstitutional laws without parliamentary or presidential approval.

I think the possibility of iterative erosion of Article V such that the the entrenched clause that protects the composition of the Senate from change without unanimity can be removed is very comparable. This is concerning in an age where a once-majority party has been largely supportive of a figure who's displayed dictatorial tendencies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

It's kind of interesting that state departments of transportations are so involved in anti-litter campaigns. Seems like they were the most relevant government stakeholders prior to the creation of the EPA. The Keep America Beautiful campaign was also involved with state DOTs [1], and many current anti-litter campaigns involve/are run by the local DOT (Tennessee [2], Mississippi [3] are two examples). I guess it makes sense when you consider the abundance of litter on highways, but trash certainly has environmental effects beyond the highway.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_America_Beautiful

[2] https://litter.mdot.ms.gov/

[3] https://nobodytrashestennessee.com/

Vaguely similar to a joke from Ninotchka that Zizek often uses about the difference between 'coffee without cream' and 'coffee without milk'. He usually uses it to reference the concept of negation in the Hegelian dialectic, but he's also mentioned the difficulty of computers understanding negation in the context of the coffee/cream example.

The joke from Zizek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmJVsaxoQSw

The goal of a park (particularly the valley) is to allow as many people as possible to see and appreciate it. There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of empty wilderness in the Sierra (including in Yosemite) , with much of it similar in scale to Yosemite.

Your story is a good example for one of the goals of parks, but you seem to have missed the point. If you've never been to the Yosemite after living in CA for a few years, then you likely wouldn't expend a lot of effort to see wild places in nature. Thus, Yosemite is a perfect place for you to see and appreciate since it is spectacular and relatively accessible.

With your newfound appreciation, you now can advocate for the preservation and protection of wild places – though preferably not in the sense that you want to prevent others from having your experience, and rather in the sense that you should want to advocate for the protection of undeveloped wilderness.

Considering 67.8% of murders are committed with firearms[1], it's pretty fair to frame this as an attempt to reduce gun violence. Also, this solution mainly focuses on resolving disputes in a non-lethal way that would have been traditionally resolved through murder, making guns an even more relevant focus due to the high death rate of shooting in comparison to non-firearm assault. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/...