1,043 karma · joined February 22, 2020
Positive expected value is positive expected value. This works great, as long as you have plenty of bankroll and can ride out any losses.
As you say, this advice doesn't apply to people who might need the money.
I find this somewhat dubious. If you buy-and-hold for a lifetime, you'll face at least a once-in-a-lifetime level of shock at some point.
The possibility that this shock will happen just when you need the funds occurs fairly regularly to generations of retirees: but always seems to be forgotten by gold-standard financial advice.
The network effect works both ways: if key people in my network are convinced to switch, other people will follow.
Being able to communicate via [free wifi/a much smaller data cost] was a big selling point.
If I have a spare $50, then deciding how to optimally invest it to end up with $51 is not worth the thought or effort put into that.
I'm gonna spend my $50 on entertainment or chicken tenders - here, I have a chance of getting both. It's rational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1...
It seems highly unlikely to me that this would have been a problem in Ancient Rome.
You're so close to uncovering something here...! Why do you think so many people play the lottery?
Everyone being paid more than a living wage is already choosing to do more work than they have to. Why do you assume that people would stop working, if they have a choice? It's already evident that people choose to work without coercion, if they are paid properly.
My point is that coercion via threat of personal destitution is bad and should be eliminated, not that work is bad.
I'm imagining jobs with (for example) a high emotional toll, disgust factor, risk factor.
I believe those aspects are presently undervalued (described above as jobs which "anyone can do"), so I imagine there would be a reassessment of how those tasks are valued. They would likely require relatively higher pay before people were willing to do them.
Jobs with generally poor working conditions, or a high degree of managerial control and low autonomy, could be re-factored into jobs with better working conditions, as people are more able to be selective on that basis.
I was also going to mention that this is actively prevented by modern society. In practice, you cannot forge these things by yourself, as you will soon be stopped by private landownership.
That the money they make is based on the amount they can extract, and not on the value they provide. You're describing a system which is not democratic capitalism, it is serfdom.
If that were the case, why would we continue to allow that?
If we (as a society) guaranteed everybody enough resources to live, those types of jobs would need to be paid a more appropriate rate, including hazard pay.
This error is presumably due to failed OCR character recognition.
I can't access the original article (which is linked for subscribers) but it seems to be because the word is in italics? Or might the brand have had it's own stylistic ligature/logotype at the New Yorker?
You reporting 50 years later that you wish you could live there (I would also love to), illustrates that this didn't happen.
If you got a bunch of spare money, enjoy the stock market.
Considering that RH's business model has benefited from getting people excited about gambling on volatile stocks, I highly doubt they would be motivated to protect their customers from pump & dump.
The most powerful thing you can do, right now, is make the parties aware that this is important to your vote.
Try to reach a person - contacting individual politicians is best. Although, they should have a staff to deal with your writing and reply directly to your point, especially before the election. You might expect to be added to a spammy mailing list.
Bearing in mind that the national MPs do not have direct power over this within the EU, they should still have a political position.
Vote for a party which supports your position (check also: https://www.kieskompas.nl/nl/tk21/)
If you have a system that is beating the house (or appears to be), the house will immediately shut you down.
You can't win. Not only because the bets are stacked against you (here in favour of the wealthy), but also because the system only exists in the first place to benefit the powerful.
Young people sometimes use the word "gay" to express a complex sexuality which doesn't categorise neatly with a label. It's understood that you can be both "gay" and "bi" simultaneously, or indeed you can be a man who has sex with men who is straight.
The only person in this chat who is trying to put strict labels based on behaviour is you (the other commenter only observed some behaviour without labelling), so it seems like you're arguing with yourself?
Phillip Morris used its propaganda to lie to people about health risks and "benefits" of smoking, sold an addictive product to addicts, and used its resulting people power to subvert democratic decisions.
It didn't do this with transistor technology, sure. But cigarettes have hugely more Daily Active Users than Twitter, still today.
What? Yes, it did, that's literally what it did do.
Here's IKEA's original Press Release which has been worked into this "news" article. The original PR actually has much more clarity: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ingka-inves...
IKEA makes it clear that the forest was formerly owned by a conservation group and was seemingly not in danger of being developed, contrary to the headline here.
A comment from any random person (in general) holds a lower level of trustworthiness.
This would be ultimately filled with trolls, nonexperts, and people with an ulterior motive or grudge: so any such effort would be less trustworthy than the original publication.
If you want to find mistakes, you can find one in every paper. The character of the mistakes is important - is it fraud, is it incompetence, does it negate the results? Or is it good science being done by a human? An open website doesn't seem to me likely to be able to draw that out.
Feedback at your request -
This rubbed me the wrong way because homosexuality was classed as a disorder in my lifetime. (And that has an impact on me, still today - and it is still used as justification for criminalisation in 72 countries). So, there is fair reason to equate them.
If we were having this discussion in 1973, would you be saying "it does nobody a service to see homosexuality as normal"? Because a large proportion of psychiatrists and people were saying that.
What makes those people (in the past) wrong to say that, while you (in the present) are right to say this?