Hacker News Reader

Comment by sevensor | Hacker News Reader

I've heard from a friend who used to work in Houston refineries, that it's not unusual for refinery workers (who do carry mobile phones, by the way) to call their brokers immediately when they hear an explosion or see an unexpected plume of smoke from a neighboring refinery.

Also smoking on the job is apparently much more common at refineries than I would have expected.

Edit: this comment reflects the state of the industry 20 years ago, second hand. Take it for what it's worth.

View on HN

I once read an argument (maybe here on HN, I'm not sure) that if insider trading were legal, Enron wouldn't have taken anybody by surprise. I'm not sure I buy the argument that it should consequently be legal, but it's an interesting idea.

On the other hand, consider how rare the Enron case seems to be. Since it's implosion, how many other companies were based on total fraud? Theranos is all that comes to mind and it wasn't even public.

It seems like the system mostly prevents massive Enron style fraud.

heaps of public companies turn out to be frauds, there is an entire industry out there of people spotting fraudulent stocks and shorting them (see Muddy Waters, Citron research et al)

Sino-Forest has probably been the largest and most well known (as well as Valeant and their fake pharmacies) along with a bunch of Chinese small-medium-cap reverse IPO's like CCME

Tyco, WorldCom, Healthsouth, Adelphia, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bernie Madoff... Shall I go on?

Trump.

Total fraud isn't the only sort of corporate fraud though. Legalized insider trading would really open the floodgates for financially incentivized 'whistle-blowing' of any sort of fraud (as well as basically anything else that could conceivably move the market...)

You mean, how many companies have been outed as being based on total fraud.

That's an interesting idea! Finding the 'victim' in insider trading is complicated as well because it is typically someone who would have made a trade but didn't, so how do you know who they are?

There was a Planet Money podcast about this [0] that if I remember correctly said it wasn't even explicitly illegal in the US until relatively recently. It was considered theft to take insider knowledge, but not illegal to trade on it.

[0] I think it's this one: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/12/23/460689797/epis...

Of course people smoke where it doesn't make much sense.

I mean, think about it for a second.

My friend's explanation was that if the really flammable stuff gets out, it's already going to be on fire anyway. He described a technician tossing his cigar butt in a puddle of diesel fuel to make the point. The fuel didn't catch fire.

Diesel isn't particularly volatile, it's difficult to ignite even with an open flame. Nothing like gasoline/petrol (which also would probably pass his cigar butt test, but vapors from which could certainly ignite from the match he used to light his cigar.)

I thought about it and couldn't figure out why it's obvious. Care to share some light on that?

Not the OP. Two thoughts: Working in an environment that could explode at any minute requires some relief to combat stress. Kind of like a war zone. OR Smoking doesn't make sense, so of course people who choose to smoke would do so where it doesn't make sense.

They are saying it doesn't make any sense for anyone to smoke anywhere.

Refineries are flammable. Cigarettes burn intentionally.

Not saying it’s the best joke, just explaining the meaning.

Smoke doesn’t belong in your lungs.

Smoking a cigarette has its downsides no matter how flammable the greater surrounding environment happens to be.

So in your world, if you’re willing to be X amount self-destructive or accept X risk, you’re also willing to accept X + Y risk or self destruction regardless of how large Y is. Got it.

No, I just expect that acceptance of X is correlated with acceptance of Y.

(and really, much of the time, acceptance is the wrong word. Indifference or something like that often fits better)

Which also doesn't hold. I'm willing to invest my money, but I'm not sticking it into penny stocks. Your reasoning ignores any sort of reasonable boundary people have wrt risk.

That's not what correlated means.

You're right. Correlated does not mean "people who have historically take risks will take any risk regardless of the danger."

Which shouldn't have quote because it wasn't what I said, and isn't even a fair reading of what I said.

Correlated implies a statistical relationship, ruling out phrases like "will take any risk regardless" and requiring phrases more like "may tend to" and such.

And then I even said that I "expect" the correlation, so it's probably reasonable to read the usage as more conversational than scientific.

It's pretty typical addict behavior. Next time you go to a gas station, look at the ground. Unless they sweep regularly, the ground next to the pumps will have a great deal of cigarette butts on it.

ITT, people love their nic-o-tine.

No, it's only that this isn't Reddit and you have to try a bit harder to bring people over to your way of thinking.

No, people just have an issue with the pretentious way you're making your case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com