bofadeez

8 ms·

91.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
I opened with a rhetorical question, not an insult. The answer is obviously "the same as I consumed before it was legalized" - presumably zero fentanyl use for you whether it's legal or illegal. I was not implying you do fent
92.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
If fentanyl were legalized, how much would you personally consume? News flash: nobody does/does not do drugs based on legality. The Rat Park experiment showed that rats in enriched, social environments consumed far less drugs than isol
93.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Prohibition drives black markets where normal price discovery, quality control, and dispute resolution vanish, producing high prices, inconsistent purity, and violence. It does nothing to reduce demand. Low-level dealers effectively stabili
94.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Surprised this wasn't already a thing. What did people do before? Manually warp it?
95.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Good point. If you let the government silence extremists then they can also do it to the moderates next. Those are subjective definitions after all. Paradox of of tolerance makes it clear that what can't be tolerated is anyone promotin
96.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
> So how was I able to make money That's called "anecodtatal gambling success" and a lot of smart people suffer from this fallacy. Applying formal causal inference procedures such as propensity score matching, doubly robus
97.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Well yes, we're in a permanent bubble with fractional reserve banking and central planning. Mises institute spends a lot of resources explaining how that works to the public, etc. That's not helpful insight though in terms of taki
98.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Yeah markets are disconnected from fundamentals. Conduct causal inference with any fundamental metric on forward returns and you'll see they have almost zero predictive ability. That supports the efficient market hypothesis, as do many
99.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
That reply doesn't make sense either. Sounds like you're just a "bad person" haha
100.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Yeah I guess you fundamentally misunderstand the difference/significance between someone who is seeking objective peer-reviewed truth and someone who tries to seduce investors to put money into their fund for fees on the internet with
101.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Warnings today are mainstream and widely understood, unlike late‑90s dot-coms where Buffett was largely ignored. Buffett explicitly says he doesn't invest in complicated businesses, finances aside. Plus, core AI players are profitable
102.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Yes but his point is it's impossible to detect in realtime. Timing.
103.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
That person is not even an academic. At least google Eugene Fama so you don't embarrass yourself like this. What does Ja Rule think about bubbles? Ask him why markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
104.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Eugene Fama believes it's impossible to detect a bubble. Why do you think he's wrong?
105.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
During most of the dot-com boom, there was not a broad consensus that a bubble existed, whereas today’s AI boom is widely accompanied by media warnings about an AI bubble, making public awareness much higher than it was in the late 1990s. I
106.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Business failure is an important part of capitalism; it frees up resources to be allocated to productive businesses. A state bailout creates malinvestment and is antithetical to free market capitalism.
107.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Yeah that's what did it. What kind of world would we live in without art propaganda where USSR didn't collapse? Too horrific to even imagine.
108.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
And are there any quant funds that consistently make money? No. It's like professional gambling. Susquehanna actually bets on sports too. Constant losses (hopefully slightly) offset by gains. There's no such as a trader with hig
109.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
In the case of an email validation service, yeah they must have a huge quantity of infrastructure and then throttle it sufficiently to fly under e.g. proofpoint blacklists. But I don't think you can get big discounts on IPv4 so it&#x27
110.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Absolutely! It’s not simply annoying—it’s dangerously careless.
111.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Depends on whether they have economies of scale going on or not. If it's just an email validation service then price should do the trick (given feature parity). You just need to burn through a lot of IPv4 and domains to do a proper por
112.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
> “How can I compete with them? They have teams. They have funding. They have thousands of customers.” Price. They have overhead. They have growth expectations for future funding rounds and tend to overpay to acquire customers when their
113.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Wow man. Thermodynamics operates on mechanical causality while human behavior does not. Because of the internal state of a human. Do you just believe anything that was p-hacked together? I can tell you have never predicted human behavior in
114.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Free speech is inalienable, it does not originate from majority opinion.
115.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
It's a lot more complicated than that. Eugene Fama might be a good starting point for you. (Spoiler: most PhD level machine learning quant trading funds do not make money. Marcos Lopez de Prado can explain why that is the case: they ac
116.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Agreed. But when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
117.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Predictive power alone doesn’t equal causal understanding. The paper models news and opinion spread as physical processes that may (over)fit observed data, but it never establishes why these patterns occur. No counterfactuals, no interven
118.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
You should deploy a quant trading model based on your predictive behavior theory and compound your way to be the richest person on earth. It's not that complicated apparently!
119.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
Human action isn’t just another physical process because it’s driven by intention, not mechanical causation. A rock falls because gravity compels it; a person acts because they want something to happen. That difference makes human behavio
120.
by bofadeez 11mo ago
All this “physics of news” framing repeats the same mistake mainstream economics made decades ago, confusing human action with measurable physical phenomena. People aren’t particles, and opinions aren’t spin states. As Mises and Hazlitt arg

More ›