atomical

They need her to buy them a house. That's not needing a little.

> My husband and I never really discussed the fact that I’d be supporting my parents. It was just a given

> He doesn’t mind the way I want to live — he just goes along with it.

> I once had a conversation with my husband about how if I died, he’d have to keep taking care of my parents. It’s a dark topic, I know, and he wasn’t thrilled about the idea. But he wouldn’t kick them out.

> My dad is now retired, and when my mom retires she’ll move in with us too. The plan is to give them this house eventually, and get our own nearby.

She says her parents aren't pleasant people. Imagine how her husband feels about dedicating all his future earnings towards their happiness. She thinks this is normal.

> Commerce would continue, with state-backed currencies swapped for crypto alternatives that float freely on an open market.

I'm assuming this means a stable coin?

Has anyone figured out how to verify the backing on a blockchain? If that was possible Tether's fraud would have been exposed sooner.

Also, why is Facebook's new currency rumored to be backed by multiple currencies? That seems like it would add volatility instead of lessening it.

What's the argument against Alibaba?

Buffett and Munger have said that they are having difficulty investing cash because they have so much of it. In this case it seems irresponsible to take loans. I don't see the point unless it's a tax dodge.

It's more than that. They received money from "investors" without giving away any equity.

Does HN use machine learning to flag posts?

I don't find NetFlix compelling because after I watch great movie X the service cannot recommend me another movie that is of the same caliber.

Also, there are a lot of independent movies and TV shows on NetFlix. And they suck. Horrible acting and plot but the cover is sometimes good enough to trick you into wasting time taking a look.

Is this sort of compliance testing needed in countries with authoritarian leaders?

I wouldn't be so sure. Juries can be convinced of anything if you look at past judgements against Monsanto.

I'm not saying that I think Google is innocent but often the evidence is very difficult for the lay person to interpret (especially when it is absent).