hnnewguy

How did I know that there would be a comment like this at the top, someone criticizing the research for not being science?

What is wrong with making up and using a narcissism metric and seeing what it correlates with? It's how social science is done, and how you discover results that are worth exploring. Get off your high horse.

>I like his disdain for targeted ads, in spite of the fact that this could probably be profitable for his company.

I don't agree with the idea that all a company has to do is tack on ads and they'll be wildly profitable. I think that ship has sailed; the more ads we're bombarded with, the less effect each individual ad has on us. There are diminishing returns to ad optimization. We can only buy so much stuff.

There will be some interesting times in the near future surrounding this ad-driven ecosystem.

>At worst, they are the next-generation MTV

Completely delusional.

I don't know what SnapChat will end up "being", but the idea that the worst-case-scenario is, for all intents and purposes, "incredibly successful" is so far off the rails. How people can read things like this without at least contemplating a tech bubble is beyond me.

>It's sad that 538 has turned into a pop-stats site that runs on volume and snappy headlines.

It's our fault, they're catering to our demands. You can't run a media company any other way. No one wants to read read (although I'd bet on average everyone spends far more time reading). So you get wham-bam, buzzfeed-esque content. Even on HN, long form articles will inevitably be met in the comment section with a "tl;dr?".

>It's been running a massive surplus since the 80s.

When the boomers were in their prime earning years, supporting a smaller, aged cohort.

>you realize that all those people suckered into ARM loans they couldn't afford during the housing crisis was precisely because they couldn't read between the lines?

Maybe, just maybe, there were a few who said, "I'm going to flip this house before the interest rates adjust, so who cares what it says between those lines?" or "I'll live in this house while I can afford it, and when I can't I'll mail in the keys and leave the bank hanging for a loan I agreed to pay back in good faith."

All the bad guys aren't on one side.

>Do you think he is a liar and if so what do you think he is lying about and why?

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. While I don't agree with user=irrigation's comments, I think he's been pretty clear: the claims don't jibe with his experience as a consultant and he's skeptical about the self-promotional aspects. It's hardly ambiguous.

So why are you demanding he come out and call patio11 a liar? That would be an asshole move. Instead he's saying "I don't believe it", and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. We're all just "some guy" on the internet, who cares?

>because the country is seen as dysfunctional

All the more reason to study their literature.

>It it weren't, the numbers would reflect the male/female employment percentages

So should this apply to every industry?

>the couple uses Washington state (where Paul’s brother lives) as their address for U.S. residential purposes because there’s no state income tax.

>Plus our benefits are grandfathered in if Congress screws around with Social Security.

>"But at least now, when we go to the United States, we have coverage and if we get sick, we won’t be devastated financially.”

Not sure how I feel about people taking advantage of safety net, while doing whatever they can to avoid contributing.

>disrupt these banks.

What makes you think that the people involved in the disruption of the banks won't partake in the same shenanigans? Do you think "bankers" are inherently evil, while their replacements will be inherently good? The Bitcoin world says otherwise. "Tech people" are stealing people's money left and right.

>If the banks are "too big to jail/fail" then maybe we should make them smaller...

Sure, and then we'll let all the pseudo-government-controlled banks in say, China, or even Canada do all the large-scale banking business globally.

The business of banking is vastly larger than cheqing accounts and ridiculous ATM fees that people like us deal with day to day and complain about. That's why the industry is heavily regulated, and why the banks are so large, and why the local credit union in Podunk isn't underwriting the Facebook IPO. It's also why some SV startup isn't going to ride in and up-end the industry without itself becoming some financial behemoth that needs to be regulated.

But it has a garage, and in the Valley that's where dreams are born.

I found that odd as well. What exactly is a "technology company"?

>I don't really think he burglarized MIT

I think Mr. Swartz's actions at MIT are admirable, but I don't know how you can deny that what he did was burglary.

>artificially low interest rates

Interest rates are set in agreement between borrowers and lenders, and hence are always artificial.

As far as optimality, the "best" rate is one as low as possible without causing inflation.