tanderson92

Marxists would counter that capitalism will lead to a oligarchic elite, or at the very least powerful industries which will seek to influence and capture the political and regulatory system using the excess value taken from labor. So, it's like timing Phelps in the rapids leading to a waterfall and blaming the waterfall only for the rapid plunge.

I figured as much, since a similar insurance contract story was in Friday's newsletter and linked to this piece.

see also at Bloomberg, "Arbitrage Discovered": https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-27/arbitrage...

As I explained elsewhere to you, not all passive or quasi-passive money is in indexed products. And furthermore, reading the article as I encouraged you originally to do, reveals it is not about index funds.

It's definitely possible, as evidenced by this case where the article is actually not about index funds! Also passive and quasi-passive is in no way necessarily "index funds"

This is a very poor way to think about what the central thesis of an article is.

Yes but this article is really not about index funds which is why it’s fine that algorithms play a prominent role in the article.

You responded to the only phrase of my original comment that had to do with Levine the person. If this is your concern, perhaps you could have chosen to substantively engage with the article?

Maybe he is praised because he is a good and thoughtful finance writer. And if there’s any financial news site which would have an incentive to avoid clickbait it would be Bloomberg because it’s subsidized by the rents it extracts from its terminal and data business, and this is one service they provide to those customers so they have an incentive to provide value.

Thanks! That’s awesome to hear.

The "index funds" thing is throwing people off the track of the article, which is more about robots than index funds proper. Perhaps "when human analysts are replaced with algorithmic robots, capital markets will feature less activity but what about efficiency?".

If you carefully read the article, it is very much not about the "What if 100% of assets were indexed" argument you often see. It's about what happens as more and more assets are robotically allocated via algorithms. Matt Levine is not a clickbait writer, and he deals seriously with the arbitrage-seeking nature of capital markets including robots which will seek to dominate by predicting what the winners will be.

I think the article deserves a fuller and fairer reading than your comment indicates you've given it.

I don't see any mention of smartcard/PGP features (or rsa4096), which makes this a non-starter for me. Sometimes the extra cost is associated with extra features.

Many people use splitwise for this.

That was milonga, one of the three primary sub-dances of tango, though the technique overlaps almost entirely. Here is the most common style, actually called tango (words are heavily overloaded in tango): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiT4OS6MKVQ

For completeness, here is the 3rd main type: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWSugQxwpEA

Worth mentioning it is entirely improvised.

It's not a preprint, it's a "teaser" -- the utility of which is suspect to me. It is certainly not the paper he submitted to Royal Society Proceedings. I don't work in this specific subfield but it reads like ramblings. Show the proofs.

Trapezoidal rule quadrature is better than you would expect (2nd order) for periodic (even better for analytic and indeed entire, in this case) integrands. See this paper: http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/1734/

Well okay but he said "message encryption"; everyone is reading into that to mean authentication as well but I don't know why we should extend that understanding when a plain reading of his post implies a harsher critique of PGP encryption than warranted. It's also amusing how many people downvoted me for disagreeing with tptacek.

Since anyone in the world can encrypt to a PGP public key, deniability is trivial. It is true that some systems (like enigmail) also encrypt to your own public key when sending messages, but this is also easily deniable.

This is all true, but is a different question from deniability when sending messages, and leaking metadata when sending information, which is what tptacek claimed:

> ...in particular, it's difficult to send deniable messages with it.

It's easy (unless tptacek is mentioning an attack I am unaware of) to ensure deniability -- encrypt but don't sign.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by (1-2) leaking meta-information and making deniability difficult? Do you mean that even when choosing to encrypt but not sign I am leaking definite proof (like a signature) of my private key information in the encrypted message?

That seems hard to believe unless I am misunderstanding you, because my experience is that any private key use requires auth from my Yubikey and yet I can do encryption without my yubikey plugged in at all.

edit: If by deniability you're talking about PFS, then, well, don't sign something you want to be able to deny having signed. I feel your comment might be misinterpreted to be a critique of PGP encryption when really it's a critique of PFS of PGP signatures+encryption.

You can do this at morningstar.com

Right. I always worry when I'm presented a price plot over more than a few months that there is something masking the real picture, which is total return, or price + cash flow. For any "portfolio"-like feature you're going to want total return and not price action return.

I signed up, very cool stuff! Is there any feasible way to build total return functionality in? This was always a major gripe of mine with Google Finance, and why M* is preferred for non-trading, investing purposes. I imagine you would need reliable dividend (ex-div date, price, amount, etc) information, and I'm not sure what your data sources are.

If canonical means "as a general rule" or "default" then yes, powers by default are given to States. That's my only point.

I wasn't arguing anything about whether this regulation at issue is within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if you read my prior comment carefully.

> No, they aren't. They are no more canonical than the federal government.

However much I might wish otherwise (because federalism is bad and anti-small-d-democratic), the 10th amendment explicitly gives all remaining/non-prohibited powers to States and not to the US. I kind of feel that makes them more canonical as a matter of law, even if that's not how we typically experience policy.

Yep, the transforms and series solutions are actually the most important part of ODEs, not just in EE but also in PDEs.

ODEs as taught in a first-course undergraduate course is precisely a bag of tricks.

One thing that is not discussed is that one can participate in U.S. Treasury auctions at brokerages (as well as TreasuryDirect but I sympathize with those who would want to avoid that site). Fidelity and Schwab both promise retail investors the so-called "high rate", with no bid/ask spread on new treasury auctions. There are no markups or fees. Furthermore, at Fidelity one can manually roll over treasuries into new auctions and at Schwab it is not much harder but is done manually a day or two before the auction.

Bid/ask spreads are an annoying feature of OTC bond markets since bonds are not currently traded on exchanges (hello SEC! Please fix this) for retail customers since they don't have the volume to obtain the tightest spreads. So, one can just avoid spreads entirely by only participating in auctions, at least while building/maintaining a ladder.

Hello from the Bogleheads 90/60 thread ;-)

For others, you can extend this to building a 60/40 balanced equity portfolio. See: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=256020