kareemsabri

Yeah, I disagree. It's basically the standard leftist argument that "no true leftist" goes far enough. Saying they are "half measures" doesn't mean they aren't progressive half-measures. I'm sure the OP would seize and the means of production and eat the rich or whatever but that's not what progressive means.

I dunno what your N=1 point is supposed to mean. Being a sanctuary city is a progressive policy. And calling needle exchange a straw man is odd. How is it a straw man? A straw man means I'm setting up a fake version of my opponent's argument and arguing with that. It's an example of a progressive policy that exists. You seem to be saying it's not progressive because it doesn't solve the root causes. So the only cities that get to be considered progressive have to SOLVE drug addiction? I don't buy into that definition of progressivism. A harm-reduction drug program is a hallmark of progressive cities all over the world.

Here is SF's free and subsidized housing policy. It does exist. https://hsh.sfgov.org/services/the-homelessness-response-sys...

They have 12,000 units. You as a resident will pay between $25 per month and up to 30% of your income (if you have one). I don't believe any of these are shelters. You confidently claim something doesn't exist that a two second google search brings up. Private residence, long-term, extremely subsidized housing does exist in San Francisco. I'm not saying it's adequate, perfect, or solves the homeless problem, but it exists.

My points follow a simple premise. I think SF has sufficient policies to be considered a "progressive" city, and I gave examples of progressive policies. I am not going to do the HN thing where you go back and forth snip-quoting each other's points, that misses the forest for the trees. But if SF is not progressive, then no city in North America is.

I don't think I've seen a comment with so much wrong crammed into it.

> Take a breath from American politics for a second and it's abundantly clear that SF politicians, and policies, are peak Liberal America.

> For Americans, that looks like communism I guess. For the rest of us, it's milquetoast centrism and performative virtue signaling to further protect capital interests.

I'm not American. I've lived the majority of my life in Canada, and about 8 years in America now. It doesn't look like communism. Being "progressive" does mean enacting communism, though if that's your bar, yeah I agree San Francisco isn't communist. You're kind of all over the map here, but your general claim seems to be that because San Francisco is not successful at achieving the desirable outcomes of progressive policies (low incarceration, safety, material needs met, low income inequality), it's not progressive. And cause they have empty houses? That's just... bizarre. Everyone knows it's a failed city. That doesn't make it "milquetoast liberal". You know it's a city right? It has to operate within the constraints of the nation it's a part of. Comparing to to sovereign nations that have the full autonomy of the state to enact their policies (Norway, Singapore, Japan) makes no sense.

I'll try to zero in on a few well known progressive policies in San Francisco.

- open air drug markets have been allowed to operate with impunity, drug laws are generally not enforced

- harm reduction programs for drug addicts, here's a list of needle exchange places in San Francisco for example https://endhepcsf.org/san-francisco-needle-exchange-schedule...

- they do provide low cost, and even free, housing for homeless people, addicts etc. I'm not going to link this for you but it's easy to find

- they have long been a sanctuary city and do not aid in enforcement of the immigration policies of the federal government

- here is their universal healthcare - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_San_Francisco it's been around for 15 years

- they elected Chesa Boudin. the "cold feet" they got was cause people aren't safe in San Francisco. people prefer not to be robbed or killed, even progressive ones

The American Overton Window is irrelevant. San Francisco's policies are progressive on an international scale.

Then you want to "turn it to me" and actually put stuff in quotes I've never said lol. Who are you arguing with? I never said anything about restorative justice (I'm actually fairly sympathetic to it). I said San Francisco has enacted a significant number of progressive policies. It has. That's really it.

People will get up in arms over caning but throw 20 year olds in jail for 25 years.

No, it's a progressive one. Their policies on drugs, policing, homelessness, enforcement, housing, zoning are all progressive. Why do you think it is "liberal" and what would a "real" progressive city look like, then?

I can't imagine thinking typescript improved human life more than Google Search

> In theory there could be some kind of liquidity crisis if FTX had to liquidate many margin trades at the same time.

I don't think there can be.

If all assets customers have title to are held 1:1 in the currency the liability is denominated in, there is no scenario I can see where FTX is unable to fulfill customer withdrawal requests. Even if customers make use of significant margin and FTX has to liquidate all of their margin positions at once due to tanking prices. The customer who pledged their assets as collateral have now forfeited them to FTX and so have no withdrawal to make, so no liquidity crisis. The customers who did not make use of margin should have their assets sitting there ready to be withdrawn. Can you explain how a liquidity crisis can occur through margin trading?

FTX may lose significant sums of money, and face a solvency crisis (they may have to shut down margin trading altogether), but it should always be able to give customers their assets back. Unless they are misusing customer assets for other things.

I'm not sure you understand what free speech is.

Being able to claim someone's speech makes you "unsafe" is akin to "words are violence" that the pro free speech crowd objects to. Elon may face a greater risk of harm with the world having a way to guess his location (broadly) but that's not a case to silence speech.

It should also be noted he's a billionaire. Have you seen Zuckerberg's security spending?

Online dating is more convenient. Meeting a stranger in a bar or at a party, and striking up a conversation in the moment, is more satisfying.

Yeah, I addressed this in another comment[1]. "Most of the time" is doing a lot of work there, most is 75-80%. 20% is not negligible to me.

But as your article points it, DCA is not about getting the absolute best return, it's about risk mitigation.

> The only times when DCA beats LS is when the market crashes (i.e. 1974, 2000, 2008, etc.). This is true because DCA buys into a falling market, and, thus, gets a lower average price than a lump sum investment would.

If you are fearful of a crash (like now, as we are in the midst of war, recession, energy shortages, coming out of a pandemic etc.) risk mitigation may be higher on your list of priorities. I also think it just lowers cognitive load for people who aren't investing for a living.

All that said, I 100% agree with DCA as the best approach for people investing out of income!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33786050

Absolutely. Sure, in a bull market you give up some upside but I doubt you're likely to really care. If I'm riding something all the way up and making profit, I'm happy. If I'm losing 20% or 40% of my money, I'm extremely unhappy. Human sensitivity to negative emotion makes the insurance worth it, imo.

And yes, averages are great for everyone but the outliers!

note taken

Yes, you risk buying at inflated prices let's say. The common idiom is "time in the market beats timing the market", meaning yeah, just get your money in if you have it. Here's one analysis [1] that claims since 1950 in every 10-year period, lump-sum would have been better 75% of the time. But there are some caveats.

First, 25% of the time is a lot of the time. It may be possible to recognize an overheated market, by looking at historical earnings multiple averages for example. Second, they are using a "total market" index, even broader than the S&P 500. I don't know that many people who buy a total market index. Usually it's the S&P 500, or even a sector focus. The more specific you get, the more these results are likely to break down I would bet.

We focus on DCA for people who are working for a living and investing out of income, which is obviously a different cohort than Fred Wilson, the VC. So lump-sum investing doesn't really factor into it.

[1] https://www.northwesternmutual.com/life-and-money/is-dollar-...

DCA is always controversial here, someone always says lump sum is better, but I tend to think of the maxim of Ben Graham that "the stock market is a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term". I expect prices to eventually converge to some "fair" or rational value for the stock(s) in question, but at any given moment they may be way off, particularly for a single name, so I like DCA as a way to mitigate that risk. I do however recognize that DCA is a psychological way for people to build comfort and a consistent investing habit, and for this reason I think it's extremely valuable.

That said, if you're very long it's hard to picture entering Google or Apple at 15-18x earnings and doing very poorly. Personally I am DCA'ing because i) it's how I invest and ii) I do think there is more pain to come. There are many reasons for that, rallies amongst meme stock names after dips is one indicator imo.

His analysis of Airbnb is interesting. Airbnb's trailing 12 month P/E ratio is 40x, not 15.5x. He is projecting forward Airbnb's recent monster quarter. This is a bit risky imo, though maybe he knows the business better than me. I'd still be more comfortable DCA'ing into Airbnb or travel as a sector, but 2 quarters ago their P/E was 150x, so at 40x it does look pretty attractive.

Shameless plug, since this is right in our wheelhouse, I am the creator of a DCA focused custom indexing investing product[1] and a simulator to backtest DCA investing[2].

[1] https://www.tryshare.app

[2] https://simulator.tryshare.app

I believe your intuition is correct, and it just straightforwardly does help iron out short term volatility. What it de-risks is the likelihood the bottom arrives some time in the next year, at a point lower than today, and that you could have achieved a significantly lower average entry price by waiting. The risk it exposes you to is that it's already the bottom, and you're going to keep buying in on the recovery. So if you're long term optimistic but short term bearish, but lacking high confidence in your ability to call the bottom, DCA makes sense imho.

I don't know what the conjecture is that would make it not de-risking that, or what a proof would be, maybe GP will clarify.

It should be noted that many analyses of DCA versus lump sum are around the S&P 500 overall. In the case of highly volatile growth stocks or just single stock investing like Fred is discussing in the article, market timing risk is more acute, since the drawdowns are more severe (it is quite rare for the S&P 500 to drop 70-80%).

Shameless plus, I am the owner of a DCA investing app + a simulator tool to backtest DCA with different stocks, over different time periods

https://simulator.tryshare.app/

I'm not sure what you mean by "make a name". As a dev I never needed to make a name, I just acquired skills that were useful for businesses (or my own business) through building applications. How you compete with people with 10 times the experience than you is through a lower salary, as always.

I agree that "web3" skills are programming, and some of it is actually quite challenging and involves more computer science than your average web or mobile app, so I don't think web3 programmers are lost by any stretch of the imagination, even if that ecosystem collapses, they will be reabsorbed into the broader software industry.

He explained his argument. I disagreed.

My conclusion reading it was, crypto tokens are 98% scams. Uniswap is an exchange. It's a utility, using an open protocol. It's makeup reflects the makeup of the domain.

How is it misleading it's an accurate statement of the findings of an analysis. Your argument is they won't see those tokens cause they're gonna search out the one they like (and that one won't be a scam?)

What they'll conclude reading this is "wow, crypto is full of scams" and be right.

How do you know this?

I don't think that's true at all. Class and economics in America are fascinating.

Here's a citation showing the opposite.

https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12...

The difference in health insurance coverage between whites and blacks is 4 percentage points. The difference in health insurance coverage between high and low income households is 10 percentage points.

Race is very easy to focus on without making any structural changes in society. A black man was president. So long as it's the right black man, it doesn't change much.

This really isn't that bad. The evidence presented are one D2C alcohol startup shut down, and a couple companies pivoted to... charging for their services and not just pumping out memes. Could be worse.

I don't think Orkut was successful for Google, where success in measured in annual revenue in billions.

Didn't seem that similar to me. Coinbase said we're not going to discuss politics at work unless it's related to crypto. Kraken said let's debate politics and gender and identity with the CEO in the company Slack.

Yes, just use. The fact that less common edge cases exist doesn't undermine the solution. The example in the article was example.com and api.example.com, the most common setup imo.

> What if the API is shared between multiple domains? Do you need to reverse proxy it everywhere?

It would depend on your specific setup. We use a single nginx server entry to proxy many domains.

> What if it is a public API for third-party sites?

Then this approach would not be viable.

Got it. Makes sense. Kinda sad.

Wow, this goes deep!

Kind of a basic question but how do you cheat at chess, especially "over the board" ?

> Leave the company (or get fired or laid off) and you have 10 days to leave the country or find another job that will sponsor your visa.

I don't think this is correct. There's a 60 day grace period if you leave (voluntarily or otherwise) before the visa expires. Still too tight in my opinion, but not 10 days which is insane.

We just use a path prefix and a reverse proxy to save the pre-flight request altogether.