wils1245

How much are you willing to spend on a nice user interface? The whole point of passive investing is that you rarely interact with your account.

Even a slight difference in fees is worth thousands in the long run.

Depending on the role, I find it hard to believe that people being motivated by money is a bad thing as the company grows. Sure, at a start up it’s easy to connect the dots with what you work on and your end-customers, so it’s good to care about and empathize with them. But if your job is to keep the lights on, that passion for the cause isn’t going to feel vindicated too often.

Not to say that keeping the lights on can’t be a rewarding problem to work on, good plumbers will take pride in there work and find it interesting. But do you care if your plumbers are passionate about the building they are working on? No.

I thought the point was that we should look at IQ in determining punishment and risk of recidivism. Which is a deeply misguided idea.

OJ is an interesting example, as his sentence for armed robbery was considered extreme compared to the facts of his case, and influenced by the fact he away with murder.

I think it’s troubling that judges have the ability to hand down sentences far above some established norm, even if those sentences are legal.

The availability of ridesharing lessens the need for car ownership, which is a huge win for cities because it reduces the need to devote space for the storage of automobiles.

The article ignores this benefit entirely, then makes the contradictory points that a) ridesharing apps actually increase traffic, and b) ridesharing apps siphon riders from public traffic.

All in all it’s written from the perspective of someone who hasn’t had to drive much in a high density urban area, where parking is nearly as much of a headache to figure out as traffic.

There’s a big difference between empathy and guilt. That people feel guilty and responsible for what happened to the man is a legacy of his manipulation, and not something to be celebrated.

Gee if you buy into that narrative you might just like... Peter Thiel’s new media company!

You are vastly underplaying the amount of power an (unelected) man of Thiel’s wealth and political connections has to shape the direction of our democracy. He wants power, knows perfectly well what he wants to do with it, and cares very little what anyone has to say about it. The only, very limited recourse a citizen has are boycotts and petitions to reduce that power.

The dataset you are basing your assumptions on is extremely small. Your reference should be the history of highly volitle assets, not the history of bitcoin. The behavior after previous collapses tell you precisely nothing about what is going to happen next.

I don't see how a decentralized cryptocurrency could possibly regulate itself efficiently. How would you go about banning even the most basic manipulations?

Take wash trading. How can you possibly ban wash trading? To do this you need to verify that identity of seller X != identity of seller Y. Even dismissing currencies that actively prohibit this verification (Monero), how do you possibly accomplish this in a decentralized currency?

Even without the identities issue, who is looking at bitcoin governance and thinking that deciding protocol changes with a decentralized electoral system is going to produce anything but gamesmanship and paralysis. Promising newcomer coins Abc will have the same issues once there's real money at stake.

And yes. Manipulation exist in the traditional monetary system. However, regulations raise the cost of manipulation to prohibitively high levels for most people. And yes, congress is dysfunctional. But underneath the chaos we have a set of fairly well established rules, and changing those rules didn't require forking the currency.

The problems with our economic system are political, not technological. What crypto brings to money is superfluous technology and even worse politics than we already have.

What if someone wrecks my house?

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies means that implementing countermeasures to market manipulation is severely hampered. It's a fatal flaw of to the idea of cryptocurrencies as something socially useful.

10% is plenty to drive business to Lyft, especially with Lyft’s better brand.

That's a superb writeup. Really uncovers differentiators that I could feel but not put my finger on.

It doesn’t solve the problem. It’s Google’s problem. If Google is going to do nothing whatsoever to secure their property, it’s not the police’s job to do it for them.

These bikes are a nusicance in Mountain View if you don’t work for Google. They’re left all over the place - in lawns, in landscaping, right in the middle of the sidewalk. The article blames non-Google employees, but they’re often carelessly placed right near Google buildings with nothing else but office buildings around.

If I lived in Mountain View (I used to work there) I’d help myself too.