_uy6i
_uy6i on Hacker News
Guess you just ignored the “do what’s right” part of my comment, that’s convenient.
So please explain to me what part of a law that prohibits people from doing business with a Russian state owned enterprise doesn’t make sense?
Maybe, or one could argue that the second amendment applies to the most modern and capable arms of the day e.g. the musket of the time = an assault rifle today
Don’t want to talk guns, but want to illustrate the challenges of making such claims
I don’t think an originalist would take this view. To use hyperbole, I don’t think anyone intended the bill to empower the epa to shut down the energy industry.
Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck because they are out spending their money (bars, restaurants, gas commuting, going to the movies etc. = discretionary spending), but because of lockdowns they weren’t able to do that (yes some of that money got spent on other things (computer monitors and streaming services)) but the us savings rate has never been higher[1], and the wait staff that were out of jobs made more money not working than when they did!
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
While I’m not bullish I think markets are now closer to fairly valued than extreme over valuation, on a Schiller PE basis we are somewhere between the 5 and 10 year trailing averages, the 20 year average puts you at 25.9x which is a 12% drop from here. Sure the 40 year average is at 23.8x but if you used that as a gauge of fair value the only time you would have been below that was the depths of the financial crisis.
It’s the free version for their mass affluent clientele that their retail brokers (sorry “financial advisors”) can parrot
And then potentially earning non-w2 money money on top of that (Uber, babysitting, etc)
This is easier said than done, but here goes:
1) exercise. 6 days a week (2 good cardio days, two stretchy (Pilates/yoga), and two sports/outside/weights)
2) eat healthily a) 90% plant no carb plant based (salads etc) 10% whatever you want. Extremely limited drugs (alcohol) (like once a month)
3) adequate sleep ( #1 and # 2 help a lot)
4) spend at least an hour a day outside (bike to work, have lunch in the park, go for a walk)
5) use your calendar to create time for yourself
6) challenge yourself to learn new things that do not come easy I’ll to you (for many of the people that are stem oriented here, that means dancing and watercolors)
7) put your phone away
I mean that public sector employees are underpaid. Comparing consultants and in-house cost is always going to to result in 2-3x disparity (you’re paying a premium for swing capacity). I’m willing to bet the state employee is overpaid Vs his private sector non-consultant counterpart. You then have ask why hire a consultant and I think the answer is that it’s some combination of not being able to fire state employees after the project, or that those employees are actually ineffectual/incompetent.
(As an aside I’m willing to bet the #’s aren’t apples to apples with the consultant being a fully loaded coast, and the in-house not including pension benefits etc)
On top of all that, You also have to solve for the structural inefficiency of public sector pay and benefits. Public sector employees make tons more than than private sector counterparts when you account for pensions and benefits, but those only really accrue if you “put in your 20” - making government service basically a non-starter for someone that doesn’t want to be a lifer…
Citation please? Everything I’ve seen implies public sector employees in California make massively more than their private sector counterparts.
The private markets are very liquid for quality assets, you don’t need to go public for that, and the sec would not prevent these actions, their requirements would be comprehensive disclosure of the conflicts, not prohibition
Except I think in the case where I’m an LP in both funds I potentially pay an incentive fee in Old fund even if the value defines dramatically in new fund, so still could be bad for me
I don’t see this going anywhere unless a) it becomes costly/risky to hold customer data, b) it’s mandated by law, or c) there is massive customer demand
Unfortunately I don’t see any of those on the horizon…
I would have thought you would have been able to recover associated expenses in small claims court like the cost of your other hotel?
Wow kind of a making my case here - you’ve assumed that I have some anti-science position (and why are we talking about gay gay people?) and have said nothing of the sort. when in fact it’s really just that seemingly numerate and intelligent people lose their minds when you point out that any of their pet social goals are in conflict with each other.
Like for example, when rich towns have a home sale tax to fund “community preservation” (buying vacant land- decreasing supply), strict zoning codes (no multi-family for example - decrease supply) then also feel the need to have an affordable housing effort (building homes, increase supply). You literally have people in the same town government working at cross purposes!
If my local tarot card reader with a healing crystal store doesn’t believe in basic economic theory, not exactly a big shock! But they also don’t exactly purport to be “data driven”
Honestly if it weren’t so depressing I’d enjoy the schadenfreude of watching Californians sacrifice one sacred cow - science (economics), for another - their social mores.
I’m constantly amazed by my friends who can get into the minutiae of Covid epidemiology or climate science, can’t or won’t embrace the most rudimentary economic concepts and principles because it conflicts with their social beliefs
Lol I’ll just be taking your bike or equity/stock, don’t like it, ugh you’re so naive, “ownership is just a human construct”
Got it, so the widow living on a fixed income, in her modest home that was once in a lower middle class neighborhood that has now gentrified, is forced out so that someone really contributing to society (like FANG employee) can live closer to work? She now has to live somewhere else, what property was freed up exactly, (so no net new housing creation)? (Not even going to address paying tax = good for society)
#1 literally the first full sentence of text “In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs.”
#3…you might have to read past the first sentence…
Property taxes are a bad idea too.
Ask any competitive person how much fun they have competing when nothing is on the line (e.g. playing simulated poker or cash poker) and I think you have your answer.
I agree that prison truly is an epidemic, and think putting people in prison for the purchase or possession of personal quantities of drugs is unreasonably cruel
I think the this actually the best argument for some form of legalization, but given the amount of crime committed by drug users/abusers (not including drug trade related crime) the number in the US is comparable.
If people who use/abuse drugs only say on their couch and ate Doritos fine. But they cause (fatal) car crashes, violently rob and assault people, abuse their spouses and children, and commit homicide.
If ~1/3rd of offenses are committed under the influence that implies ~5k murders a year or ~78k since 2006 (admittedly I have no idea how many of those murders would have happened if the person was sober, but it’s worth noting the magnitude)
https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime
Unless you think drug use and substance abuse would go down as result of legalization, I don’t know how you can make that assertion
There are three types of violent crime associated with drugs, 1) crime to obtain money for a drug habit, 2) crime as result of the drug trade, 3) crime while under the influence (dwi/traffic fatalities, assaults, etc)
You are referring to #2 not #1 or #3
https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime
I agree, but I’ve personally never been able to disentangle the legalization Vs addiction and prison argument:
Legalization = less users being incarcerated (probably a good thing)
There is a high correlation between violent crime and substance abuse (legal and illegal Drugs) so legalization likely increases substance abuse and hence violent crime.
The system is so complex that the implications of legalization on the “model” are just not clear to me
Gross generalization, but my suspicion is that it’s not the all day staring at computer (that’s most adults these days) but also many CS types spend their free time in front of a screen as well…
Seems a simple way would be that people who have assets seized should get the greater of a) $20k OR b) 3x the value of items seized AND c) attorneys fees
At least this allows 1) people to litigate smaller seizures 2) creates disincentives for the more abusive cases