pyoung

To add to that, charitybuzz is a for-profit corporation. Not that I am against that, but it is worth keeping in mind as there have been a number of scandals in the past, where money from charitable non-profits gets re-directed to 'non-profit services firms' that are for-profit entities (The Wycleaf Jean scandal is a good example).

In general it is good to keep your eyes open when dealing with the non-profit world. There are some very good, well meaning organizations out there, but there also a lot of organizations that solely exist as tax shelters, influence peddlers, and resume/ego boosters.

The lack of universal health care probably exacerbates the homelessness situation in the U.S.

With that said, what you see in San Francisco is largely a product of the combination of homeless friendly policies and tolerable weather. Many of the 'homeless' you see during the day don't actually sleep on the street (although a decent number do) and actually reside in SRO's, subsidized housing, and shelters (One complaint I have heard about SF, you can only afford to live here if you are really rich, or if you are really poor).

Fact is the homeless situation may be a bit ugly, but it exists everywhere, it just may not be as visible. At least in SF, it's harder to ignore.

I am not familiar with any of the 'science', but from what I understand you definitely want to do some sort of strength training. It helps with weight regulation, injury prevention, and overall health. The scientific 7-minute will probably work, or at least be a good place to start.

For me personally, I've noticed that when I pay for a gym membership (or some other fitness program), I actually force myself to use the service due to the financial commitment. When i try and save money by working out at home, I always skip sessions. If I could get better at motivating myself for the home workouts, I would probably do those more, but like someone else said, the best workout is the one that you actually do.

Have you ever tried to feed kids brussel sprouts? That alone would require more effort than it was worth to cook them.

I'm not poor, but I've definitely gone through a rough period or two in my past. During those periods I managed to eat pretty healthy, but it required a fairly decent amount of planning, and there were days when I had to make due with a cup of rice or nothing at all to make the budget work. I am talking about situations where I did not have enough money in the bank account on the day rent was due, and the credit cards were already maxed out. I was working, but the work was intermittent and unreliable (and very labor intensive). So I had time to ride my bike to multiple stores and get the cheapest food, and I had time to cook meals. I lived in a single room, shared house, so couldn't 'downsize' my living any more than it already was.

Once I got a 'real' job, things obviously improved dramatically, but keep in mind I had a college degree, so that was an easy transition to make. I look back fondly on that period, but have the luxury to do so because I always knew that it would be a temporary situation.

For the 'real' poor, they often live in areas where riding a bike to multiple stores to get the best deals is impossible. They often have to settle for fast food because their kids are hungry now, and they don't have enough money in the bank account to invest in groceries (i.e. spending $100 on groceries isn't possible, while spending $10 on fast food is, even if groceries are the better long term investment). Their employment situation tends to be fairly unstable, i.e. they work a lot some days/weeks, and little to no work on others. This means that they have to spend a LOT of effort trying to find work (and obviously, they are not getting paid while they do this).

Just to go through your points: - TV is often the cheapest form of entertainment for their kids. So if they get rid of the TV, then what? Take the kids to Laser Tag? - I didn't have internet when I was poor, somehow I have a feeling a lot of poor people are in the same boat. -From my experience, almost every one is using public transportation. Cars are a huge risk and require significant financial overhead. One mechanical issue could break the budget. Carpooling is very much a middle class luxury. - They probably live in subsidized housing already, so moving is not really something they can control. - They also probably have very limited employment options, which is part of the reason they are poor to begin with. Also see my previous comment on unstable work situations. -I think one of the biggest misconceptions about the poor, is that people see that they have a TV or an xbox or some kids toys and assume that because they can afford those 'luxury' items, that they must be able to afford other things. But the fact is, these durable consumer goods are fairly cheap when compared to the ongoing costs of shelter, food, insurance, etc.. But more importantly, credit companies and payday companies and financing schemes are overwhelmingly targeting the poor. They do this because they know they can get away with charging unreasonable rates. Often this results in a poor person making a few bad financial decisions, and subsequently getting trapped under the weight of the consequences (maxed out credit cards, debt collectors, etc..)

The fact is, on a micro level, any individual is capable of escaping poverty. If they work hard and make good financial decisions, and don't run into any bad luck, they can do it. But on a macro level, the poor as a whole face systematic pressures that make it very difficult to escape poverty. One or two financial missteps can put them in a hole that is nearly impossible to recover from. Telling people to 'work hard' or 'eat healthy' or 'be financially responsible' ignores the systematic pressures that they face that make all of these things extremely difficult if not impossible.

So you are saying that a lot of the short interest is coming from people hedging their long bets?

I can somewhat relate to why one would take this strategy, as Tesla is getting a lot of hype, implying that the stock might break out (or already did, currently at $71), but they are also in a fairly precarious financial situation, with a ton of debt. Elon himself warned that if the company didn't get to positive cash flow it was likely they would go under. Still it seems like a high price to pay for a hedge, wouldn't it be simpler (and possibly cheaper) just to reduce your long position?

Got it, thanks. Do brokerages charge interest rates for allowing shorts to borrow the stock?

What?!!! Just so I get this straight. In order to short the stock you have to pay an annual interest rate of 46% of the stock value? I realize most shorts are probably only in it for short term, but that is still pretty insane.

Without quantifying the risks involved with your trading strategies, it is impossible to say whether you are beating the risk-adjusted returns of an index fund. Additionally, I am pretty sure index funds, even without risk adjustments, have been proven to be better investments in the long term than any actively managed strategy. And this holds regardless of the experience of the investors. There are always going to be a few exceptions to the rule, but most of the people getting rich in wall street are doing so because they are taking a cut of other peoples money (management fees), not because they are genius investors.

Also, with actively managed strategies, it only takes one or two bad bets to wipe out years of gains, and due to natural biases, individual investors tend to under-report/weight losses and over-report/weight the gains. As such, we always tend to hear how other investors are making a killing on a certain stock or trade, but we rarely hear from the losers, which distorts our perceptions of risk and returns (so far, I have seen a handful of people talk about their Tesla stock holdings on this thread, but I have yet to see a single person talk about haw bad they are getting cleaned out because they shorted the stock).

Kicking myself for not grabbing it while it was in the $30's. Still probably a good buy, but I would recommend at least leaving some money aside for Ramen noodles and rent, just in case it blows up.

It's a bit of a stretch as most people probably don't consider stopping at a gas station as a major inconvenience. In Tesla's defense, they do not automatically include those cost options in the calculation (you have to check the box to include them.

It is an interesting marketing/psychological move however. I imagine most people in the market for a Tesla are going to be well compensated, and as such, they will see the initial $50/hr, jack it up to what their going rate is (probably in the hundreds) and see the 'effective' costs of owning a Tesla drop dramatically.

If you can afford it, I would recommend buying one (or an Arduino or RasPi). Even if the most you ever do with it is run through some simple tutorials, it is still worth it. I have a few Arduino's and RasPi's, and to date, I have yet to make anything noteworthy, but going trough random tutorials has been fairly educational and entertaining.

I think it goes both ways. Some founders actually believe in their companies and their vision, whereas others are just holding out for a bigger payday. While it is nice to hear stories about founders cashing out, we should also celebrate those who are actually trying to make a long lasting impact, regardless of whether they succeed or fail.

The emphasis on supporting small casual transactions seems to have created a number of problems for the bitcoin infrastructure. Mt. Gox charges a small % for transactions (rather than a flat fee), a by product of this is it allows people to flood the exchange with a ton of micro transactions without any additional penalty for the volume of orders. Seems like this could be part of the reason they have been having issues.

Doesn't this also impact the block chain in some way? A ton of small transactions can flood the chain, requiring more computational energy to be spent than the transactions are actually even worth.

I think Singapore does so well because of the low taxes and because it is one of the few Asian countries in that region that isn't hampered by corruption. Europe's economies are way too diverse to group together, some of them are 'business friendly', some of them are not. The 'Celtic Tiger' was largely due to low taxes, and hasn't turned out too well (most of Europe is hurting right now), so I am not sure why we should aspire to emulate them. Regulatory policies have little to do with their success (but a lot to do with their failures, in the case of Ireland).

I think most people agree that over-regulation is a bad thing. What I take issue with is when political groups and lobbyists scream 'regulation makes us less competitive' anytime regulation is mentioned. The fact is it might increase the costs of doing business a little bit, but it also might mean that my air and water aren't horribly polluted (see Beijing air quality) or that I can count on my retirement account actually being there when I need it. I feel like one side is trying to find a good balance, while the other is being completely obstructionist. The end result is watered down regulatory policies that increase the complexity and costs of doing business, while at the same time, being completely ineffective. One major issue with this result is that this greatly benefits entrenched players, as they are already adept at navigating complex regulatory environments (which keep out new entrants) but in the end, they aren't actually affected by the regulations in any meaningful way.

The reaction to SOX by Wall Street was fairly mixed, some liked it because it meant the could put more trust in corporate financial statements. Some did not support the bill because of the usual straw man argument that 'regulation makes us less competitive'. Regardless, the passage of the bill does not say anything about the lobbying power of Wall Street, because WS was fairly mixed on it to begin with.

Regarding Dodd-Frank, many people, myself included, believe that that bill was watered down considerably, largely due to the pressure of Wall Street lobbyists. In fact, in the end, a number of Wall Street groups ended up supporting the legislation, largely because they were concerned that if Dodd-Frank didn't pass, then new, more strict regulations would be proposed in the future.

Wall Street contributes gobs of money to campaigns and has some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington. Considering how unpopular they were in the recession fallout, the fact that the only major retribution was Dodd-Frank is a testament to how much influence the wield.

This actually seems like a large flaw in their fee structure. Every traditional online brokerage/trading service that I have looked at in the past has used a flat fee. This incentives individuals to reduce their number of transactions in order to limit the overall fee's paid.

I agree that this is the appropriate way to look at bitcoin. It is not so much a currency at the moment, it is more like an asset, like stocks, bonds, or gold. If we assume bitcoin is an asset, we are not seeing deflation per se, we are seeing an increase in value.

A store of value that can be anonymously transferred and exchanged without significant costs has some inherit value in society. The only problem with bitcoin, is that if we consider bitcoin to be an asset, than it's price is entirely determined by speculation and nothing else. At least with gold, there are industrial/commercial uses for it that put a lower bound on the price. Not so much with bitcoin. Personally, I don't need an anonymous store of value, so if I am going to be speculating, I would rather do so with stocks of companies, as those are actually backed by the value of the company itself. I may throw some money into bitcoin just for fun, but I wouldn't do it to use it as a currency. My gut is telling me that most people jumping in are not interested in using it as a currency either.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean bitcoin won't become more like a currency in the future. It is possible that it will stabilize. Considering that the world has never really seen anything like this before (well there were a few attempts that failed in the past), it is impossible to predict what is going to happen.

"Nobody invests. If that's the case, then the amount of goods and services in the economy remains constant"

No, if nobody invests, then there will be NO goods and services at all. That is a recipe for economic calamity, and would create a situation where guns and ammo would end up more valuable than any currency (what is the point of holding a currency if you can't buy anything with it?). I have yet to read a convincing explanation as to how deflation is a good thing. The general premise is that a 'little' deflation is a good thing because it encourages people to save, but the authors always fail to address the fact that deflation leads to more deflation and hence the 'deflationary spiral' that eventually causes things like the great depression. One author actually argues that the Great Depression was a good thing, but I don't exactly agree with that sentiment.

Once again, Gold is a better comparison to bitcoin than any fiat currency, because bitcoin is not a form of exchange for any particular economy and the dangers of deflation do not necessarily apply. More than anything, bitcoin is being used as a store of value. While this doesn't make for a good currency, it does not necessarily mean bitcoin is doomed.

I like your point about adoption. It makes sense that a deflationary currency would attract more people due to its speculative nature. Without this aspect of bitcoin, it would still probably be trading for pennies and languishing in relative obscurity. Any digital currency designed with an inflationary system will probably fail to attract a critical mass of users, because outside of anonymity, which is only important for a small minority, there is no significant upside to owning the currency.

Where I don't agree with you is that the divisible nature of bitcoin somehow makes it viable (most currencies are divisible by the way, 100 cents = $1). The fact is deflation suppress spending (and hence economic activity) because the currency will be worth significantly more in the future than it is now, and therefore, I would prefer to hold onto it rather than spend it. Divisibility does not change this.

Where I am still up in the air, is whether or not a digital currency needs to be inflationary. Gold has some industrial uses, but it's value is largely due to tradition and speculation. It has long been used as a common store of value and is bought by traders as a hedge against fluctuations in the global economy. Bitcoin could become the 'Gold of the internet'. A new way to hedge against the global economy, but other than that, not something that really affects everyday life, except maybe at the fringes (when was the last time you bought something with gold).

I imagine your mileage may vary depending on the functions and operations that you are performing. I did a simple test of python vs R and python was the overwhelmingly faster. I believe both languages are primarily written in C, and as such, the speed of your program will depend on the 'efficiency' of the underlying code for the functions you are using.

I think he is missing a zero. 17 sqft is a mini-closet, not a mini-apartment. 170 sqft would still be pretty small, but doable.

According to the buzzfeed article, the feature was pulled from a discontinued project called Google Sets. So yeah, sounds like they had a cool feature built that is no longer getting updated and they decided to toss it in to google docs.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinesharrock/a-glimpse-into-googl...

I personally think this is awesome.

EDIT: ahh, sorry. Just saw the other comment that points out Google Sets. Anyway, this is really cool, playing around with it now, when I should be working.

I disagree. Better advice would be, if you want to be a journalist, "have a solid back-up plan" or "pursue it on the side". Even before the internet, it was a tough profession to be successful in. Now it is even tougher, but there are still individuals who manage to eek out lucrative and rewarding careers.

This advice applies to any profession that has significant excess supply vs demand. Athletes, photographers, artists, actors, musicians etc... Even if an individual never makes it big (and most don't) these activities can be rewarding hobbies as long as expectations are managed properly.

A few months ago I bought a kit from Sparkfun to mess around with. Got everything built only to find out that something was wrong with the FTDI (I couldn't upload new sketches). After a quick e-mail exchange, Sparkfun sent out a whole new board.

For people who don't know much about hardware, that kind of customer service is invaluable. Without it, I could have spent days trying to figure out what was wrong, only to give up in frustration. Instead, I got quick confirmation that there was something wrong with the board and was immediately sent a replacement (at no extra cost).

This was speculated in the following article. Compared to announcing a round of layoffs, reigning in remote workers is probably much less damaging to morale, and they can always ease the restriction or set up a more rationale policy down the road.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Why...

But if you also have ~20 tabs open in your browser, and are streaming music etc... I am doing a thin client setup of sorts, and by the end of the day things start slowing down quite a bit.

I do agree that $1300 is too much, at that price range you might as well get a mac. If it was 600-800 i'd probably jump on it. However, I think the curve ball here is the touch screen. I'd be willing to bet that Google's strategy for this laptop is to do a smaller production run, and get these in the hands of tech/programmer types, and then use the lessons learned to develop a model targeted toward a wider audience.

"it offers nothing useful in terms of creating progressive and fair tax rates." Neither does accusing people of propagating class warfare.

You also might want to look into R (I would recommend using R with RStudio, a fairly powerful, but easy to setup IDE). I have a feeling that if you know SQL, than learning a programming language is well within your abilities.

The biggest difference that I have seen regarding the Excel vs programming issue is the level of transparency that is provided in each. In excel, you get immediate validation of your functions and operations because you can see the results at each step. However, the formulas/functions themselves are 'hidden' and as the number of operations gets larger, it gets increasingly difficult to track and control the process. This makes debugging a nightmare. With programming, the results of your operations are much less transparent, but as you get familiar with the language you learn tricks to quickly summarize your data in ways that provide meaningful feedback for what you are trying to accomplish. More importantly, your script contains a concise record of all of the data manipulations and operations that you are performing, making debugging a much simpler task (compared to a monstrous spreadsheet).

An additional benefit to programming is that, after a certain level of familiarity with the language, your productivity increases dramatically. People using excel tend to be much more deliberate and cautious when creating the spreadsheet because debugging is such a pain, which means they tend to operate at a much slower pace. With programming, you can quickly pound out a script (often without even testing the various pieces of it) because you know you can easily debug the thing afterwards. From my experience, the difference in working styles results in almost an order of magnitude difference in productivity (what would take me an hour or two to create with a programming language could take a day or two to whip up in excel) and even with the extra deliberation/time, errors are still just as prevalent in excel. (And this doesn't even take into account the fact that it is much, much easier to reuse code than it is to reuse a spreadsheet).

If they can afford a crash pad in new york city, then a little extra in property taxes is probably not gonna break the bank.

Another way to look at the issue, is to evaluate the 'tax collection opportunity costs' of the absentee owners. For every condo that gets bought by an absentee owner (as opposed to a local owner), NYC loses income tax, sales tax, and general economic activity (these are wealthy individuals, there spending is a boost to the local economy). By increasing the property taxes, NYC would shift the cost-benefit ratio towards those that are actually going to utilize the property (thus resulting in more income and sales taxes), while also bringing in more property taxes

Finally, if these wealthy individuals were so concerned about only paying for what they "use", then it would make a lot more sense if they just got a nice hotel room for the days/weeks per year that they are in NYC, rather than buying a condo that sits empty most of the time.

This is based on my experience in SF (i.e. muni/bart), but the public transit experience is pretty variable. Crowds, homeless people, traffic conditions, timely connections. The tube is probably a little better/consistent, but rating the experience would be a good feature to add in SF.