rifung

I am a huge fan of the checking/budgeting features of Wealthfront. Does anyone know of a good competitor in case I'll have to jump ship?

For those who don't use it, it allows you to create categories and automatically deposit money into those categories at some interval. Then you can easily transfer between those categories.

I use this so that I can put some money away for expected expenses like taxes and a new car and also to budget for fun so I known what I can actually afford.

> We are getting to the point where lectures should be mandated to be recorded and put into the public domain

Does that really make sense? I thought MIT was a private institution. The research is often publicly funded but I don't believe that's the case for the tuition.

I believe you're in agreement.

The original comment said

> It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play.

and you said

> At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant.

which refutes the original comment.

> However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a disadvantage relative to the metagame.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this; I think the issue I (and the person you're responding to) have is the idea that you should ignore understanding the meta until you're 6k MMR as you say.

Both are important and you should develop both at the same time if you want to improve.

> This other Googler likely already has a competing offer— that’s how he got promoted last year.

Source? I'm very skeptical this is true. I am not a huge fan of Google's promotion process but it isn't that bad.

> Aside from Uber drivers, SV types, and wannabe road warrior squinters, nobody uses maps for their daily activities. People know where they're going and they go there without consulting technology. That's why we have traffic jams.

I might know where I'm going but I don't always know how to get there so I use Google Maps all the time. I don't use it for my daily commute but if I'm going to a friend's or something I'll usually use it.

When I sit in my friends cars we also use it all the time. Often we're going to a restaurant or some other location that we don't often go to.

For exploration my friends pretty much just use Yelp or Google Search. I sometimes but rarely use Google Maps for this because I find that the reviews are usually much lower quality and Google Maps is too slow (I have an old Pixel 2)

> Lives at stake don't change anything here. The question is whether self-driving cars, even with the errors, are safer for people than regular drivers on average. If so, then absolutely yes everyone should bet their lives and their families'.

Maybe logically that makes sense but from an ethical perspective I argue it's much more complicated than that (e.g. the trolley problem)

In the current system if a human is at fault, they take the blame for the accident. If we decide to move to self driving cars that we know are far from perfect but statistically better than humans, who do we blame when an accident inevitably happens? Do we blame the manufacturer even though their system is operating within the limits they've advertised?

Or do we just say well, it's better than it used to be and it's no one's fault? When the systems become significantly better than humans, I can see this perhaps being a reasonable argument, but if it's just slightly better, I'm not sure people will be convinced.

> The thing is, I see no way to have full self driving without AGI.

Why? AGI seems like a significantly harder problem than self driving cars (itself a hard problem admittedly).

What I personally think will happen is we'll meet somewhere in the middle: we can redesign roads/cars to make solving the problem of self driving easier.

I work for Google, opinions are my own.

In theory, breaking up monopolies increases competition which allows better companies/products to spring up that would otherwise be crushed by anti competitive practices. If you agree with that theory, then the act of breaking up monopolies actually makes the US more competitive.

> AppAmaGooBookSoft ignores Netflix, which is important for salary calibration since they are cash-only. And FAANG ignores MS.

Why does it matter if it's cash only? The stock is equivalent to cash unless you care that much about the fluctuation.

At Google we have Autosale so any time I get a stock grant it's automatically sold and deposited into my bank account as cash.

At Microsoft I think they go even further and give you an amount of stock based on the cash value at the time you receive it so you don't even have to worry about price fluctuations. (At least that is my understanding)

I believe the reason FAANG ignores MS is that MS salaries are lower, but that is only based on my personal experience.

> don't even know given the cost of living in the Bay Area if $300K is even really "high" anymore.

> If you max out 401k and IRA this is $275k, which is $168K take home or $14k a month.

> Left over: $7400

That sounds like a lot to me? I think the vast majority of the US would absolutely be ecstatic if they could save 7400 a month on top of maxing their 401k.

Just maxing my 401k (with employer match) I'll already have enough for my own retirement. Most people aren't able to do even that though =/

If you think $120-180k is cheap you are speaking from a place of immense privilege.

> Does that not apply to most investments? The stock market, aftre all, only works as an investment because everyone is in on an elaborate confidence game.

I don't think this is true?

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for housing prices to increase on their own. I suppose you can make the argument for increased population growth but we haven't reached the point where this is a problem, at least in the US.

On the other hand, businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money. Literally everyone in the company is (supposed to be) working towards the goal of increasing profits.

I work at Google (not Search though sorry), opinions are my own.

> When you have the actual manufacturer being buried in the results, we have a major problem.

How do you know though? What if the majority users actually do what you describe in hopes of buying something and thus the shopping results are more relevant for them?

I imagine either there is a bug or this is the case, because I'm sure the links people actually click feed back into the algorithms and the results are modified accordingly.

This being said, it seems like the fact that your results aren't personalized enough to your liking is a shortcoming, assuming you were signed in.