cltby

People don’t like having their stuff stolen. Maybe that’s regrettable, but it’s a strong and universal preference that has important policy consequences!

These are assertions, not arguments. Respond to points in the post you replied to. Be sure you understand them first.

I would think you should admire her for taking a strong moral stand at the expense of the business. She added a number of grievance-oriented features to reduce "bigotry", "xenophobia", etc; thereby making the product less able to render reality; thereby hurting its value proposition; thereby losing users; thereby cratering the share price.

Criminality is congenital. Social interventions will not fix the kid. Neither for that matter will prison, but at least it will protect the rest of us from his increasingly violent depredations.

> (and unless you are a crook, there is not)

What sort of shenanigans do you think profitable automated traders are engaged in?

High frequency trading (measuring latency, inferring event ordering, etc). Since most crypto derivatives trading takes place at ap-northeast-1, it feels like AWS is orienting this release towards financial markets customers.

Because we should have strong priors disfavoring regulation, and this is a stalking horse for yet more internet regulation.

Sorry, is your criticism that IQ proponents conflate point estimates with unknown population parameters? Is that what other IQ critics see as the core of the disagreement in this debate?

> otherwise identical cohorts.

You could do this stratification/matching for any IQ study. What's special about lead-IQ?

But these controls could be done for any IQ-related study. Is IQ-skepticism based on the belief that IQ researchers generally don't use controls? That lead-IQ researchers alone do this?

Question for any IQ skeptics here (e.g. "it just measures your ability to take tests" or "it just tells you how rich your parents are"): what's your response to studies like this? Is there anything that can be said about the effect of lead on cognitive function? Why might IQ be a good measure of lead-induced stupidification, but unreliable for literally anything else?

Good comment. I concede if it's really ~$20/month it's a rounding error and an obvious policy win.

There's wide, wide middle ground between celibacy and the debauched status quo.

Rather depressing that we're subsidizing wanton sexual indulgence to the tune of $30k/year/person.

Assuming:

* average 1% asset management fee (modal number if you poke around)

* 0% investment carry (hedge funds get away with charging this, but most asset managers don't)

* 9% effective tax rate (revenues disproportionately go to high earners)

gets you $1.8B lost tax revenues. The 0% carry assumption is very conservative, so the $1.8B is a lower bound. Even so, CA and NY collect about $400B annually. As a first order thing, this doesn't move the needle very much.