hueving

What is a handful of years? That sounds like FAANG pay to me.

>i don't see cats as any more problematic than other wildlife

The massive numbers of them are the problem. The only other pet as common is a dog and they don't hunt birds just for the sake of hunting like many cats do.

Cats hunting is a problem regardless of whether or not there are fed. It has zero to do with their 'morality'.

The problem is any cats that wander around killing multiple birds. So many people have cats that even a small percentage of them doing this is super destructive to the local birds.

Janitors were providing value whether or not Bear's long exposure to MBSs were too large.

The same applies to traders, etc.

My dentist fixing my toothache still provided value to me even if I die of a massive heart attack in two months.

>It's just that, security. You can be sure you will have healthcare, you will have housing and you will have food, and so will all your dependents.

That's certainly better security, but it's still nowhere near the level I'm talking about. You're still having to concern yourself with money for things like smartphones, entertainment, holidays, etc. and you're one government crisis away from austerity taking a big chunk of that away. Also, keep in mind that there are still people alive who witnessed WW2. You can't take the stability of your country as a given.

The $10m number puts you in the position to even diversify away risks to your home country.

Economies aren't zero sum.

Fractional reserve banking means your 100 dollar example is wrong.

Additionally, someone who truly provides net positive social utility will improve the average persons life even if they make a bunch of money that was going to be spent elsewhere.

People spending money on magic cures for lung cancer from Phillip Morris is vastly different than people buying cigarettes from them, even if they are the same price.

Rich peoples' reference group isn't limited to a single country though. There is no way we can apply the same rules to all, unless there is a new global order I haven't heard of.

See: the disaster of the US yatch manufacturing tax

FFS that $10m figure isn't about being comfortable. It's about never having to work again and never having to be concerned about paying for things in an upper middle class lifestyle.

You might be happy as a PhD student, but your housing and life is entirely dependent on the university. You are one academic violation away from that all being in jeopardy.

What happens if you get a spouse and child? Will your current housing and savings be enough to support them and yourself if you both decide you want to stay with the baby instead of working?

What if your government passes legislation that costs you your job, your housing, or your healthcare?

The $10m money is about not worrying about anything other than global economic collapse and/or massive wars.

"Not worrying about money again" means never again. Not just while you manage to hold down a job.

Retirement, buying a home in the bay area, saving for kids college funds.

You're right, spending 40k for a couple is plenty to live on. It's all of the above that sucks up the rest if you want to retire (let alone retire early).

I don't think you are fully grokking "not worrying about finances". Your scenario requires consistent outsized market returns to give you less money than the poverty level. You will be wiped out by inflation, a recession, a newborn child, or a myriad of other unexpected expenses that will quickly blow through your poverty-level allowance.

That's nowhere near "not worrying about finances". "Not worrying about finances" means you never have to work a job for income, you don't depend on the social safety nets of a single country, you never have to worry about affording a place to live, getting optional healthcare and so-on.

You're thinking that people who don't constantly have to worry about finances is what the poster is talking about, but that's worlds away from never worrying about finances again.

>I'm just amazed that anybody would think they need $10 million to be comfortable.

Seriously, read the thread again. This has nothing to do with comfort, it's about FU money.

Bear Stearns employee comp is solely about the value the employees provide to the firm. The ones making that kind of money would easily be bringing in a multiple of that in sales, etc.

Just because the company got wiped out by a black swan style event means nothing about whether their employees were providing a lot of value to the firm.

Any miners paying less or the same as the lowest have no motivation at all. And dirty energy (e.g. unscrubbed coal) or energy from backroom dealings (tons of mining arrangements in eastern Europe and China) will always outcompete any legitimate competitors using renewable.

Because lots of things were stores of value that aren't anymore.

Can I interest you in a share of Bear Stearns?

The comment is just a direct rebuttal of the claims from CPLX for the reason that gold is so valuable.

>How is this a problem with indoor/outdoor cats?

It's answered in the same post you just quoted. They hunt so many birds they are destructive to the environment and are driving some to extinction.

I don't think you understand what the term unemployment means. AOC made the same mistake.

Complexity and publicity.

Complexity: Single purpose apps built with a very specific threat model in mind for a boring, established usecase tend to be more secure. K8s is a fast evolving labyrinth of complexity with contributions from thousands of people, very few of whom have a grasp on the whole codebase.

Publicity: the general Internet doesn't find your VPN server just by using your API.

The only dissonance is your own. Nobody is making the Chinese the bad guys. They are criticizing the Chinese government, which is certainly not representative of the Chinese in any way given that it is not elected and it crushes critics.

Google search might be convenient for citizens, but claiming that convenience outweighs the moral forfeiture of Google rubber stamping political censorship is a huge jump.

If you don't care about censorship, then it might be obvious to you that Google should move into China. It's not to people who care.

> Nobody in the tech community cared until the dragonfly thing came up and they all went on wikipedia looking for reasons to hate China

Speak for yourself. I've been working on privacy projects like TOR for years and have been critical of the GFW since long before dragonfly.

>have to wonder, if China were less successful, and the people were poorer, would they be less upset

Nope. Probably even more upset. People aren't happy about North Korea either and North Koreans aren't rich. I'm happy Chinese citizens are doing better financially. I'm disappointed in their oppressive government.

>And their big foreign policy power play consists of building infrastructure for other third world countries.

We'll ignore the whole part about stealing everyone's intellectual property as a matter of business and that activity in the South China Sea. How about Taiwan?

>Yet the popular opinion ever since dragonfly was proposed is that they're the worst country ever.

People criticize their shitty actions because they are shitty. Nobody said they are the worst country at all. They just said that a company who cares about organizing the worlds information and not being evil shouldn't partake in oppressive censorship.

>We don't shoehorn the Iraq war into everything about America

Yes, we do. Anything gushing about a country always brings people out to point out the flaws in fawning over it. The only thing that seems to be unique is using whataboutisms in criticisms of pro-china articles as if the Iraq war excuses abhorrent behavior in China.

Again, the US constantly fucks up, but that has nothing to do with criticism of China on an article about China.

You also withhold from them all of the extra shit it collects in the background when you're done with your ride.

Advancements in user tracking are not the same thing as general technology advancements. Apps that suck up location data deserve all of the flak they get.

Nearing the end of a business cycle, possibly. But the economy wasn't particularly strong, it just wasn't terrible. GDP was okay, but employment still wasn't great, inflation was weak, and wages stagnant.

It really feels like the chickens are going to come home to roost on the next downturn due to the massive stimulus preventing the last one from being fully realized while simultaneously putting massive debt onto the US balance sheet.

>which will result in exponentially rising debt and inflation as the government prints money.

This analysis is missing something because inflation is a good thing for country debt denominated in it's own currency. Inflating away the outstanding debt is one of the ways to deal with outstanding debt.

If you get a hot economy that results in both high tax receipts and higher levels of inflation (not hyperinflation), outstanding debt can be worn down pretty quickly.

You don't have to directly suffer from genocide to know genocide is bad.

Right, it's best to keep those discussions amongst everyone who stands to make heaps of cash by ignoring nagging morality.

This is why in any legal proceedings against companies they only allow the jurors and judge to be made up of employees or major shareholders.

Google attracting idealistic engineers != All Google engineers are idealistic.

Like you identified, the idealistic ones will protest and maybe quit. Google will still likely be okay, it just won't be the place where idealistic engineers flock.

Well the country is going to commit genocide anyway. Why not try to sell them the weapons because we make much better weapons and US companies haven't been able to break into their weapons market yet.

The potential benefits could be substantial, we could be the first big US weapons manufacturer to break into this regime's market. Over time, economic ties could bring the countries closer together and reduce the likelihood of conflict...

Do you see how insane it is to justify something morally repugnant with potential long term economic benefits? The only way your argument works is if you don't care about censorship in the first place. If that's the case, then you need no justification at all because it's just another regular customer.

Your comment-stalk sample is bad though because that could easily refer to the administrators of the study or everyone who ran the study. The sentence you are trying to link to it is about the friend being involved in the study, not being the one coming up with findings.