hnnewguy

18 ms·

121.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> and their original series (in my opinion) eclipse what HBO currently offers. I realize it's your opinion, but...really? HBO has a massive catalog of brilliant shows[1]. Netflix isn't even on the same planet when it comes to
122.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> I smell bubble. Canada is one of the last-men-standing as far as housing bubbles. Toronto is also bad. Calgary is heading for trouble now that oil has crashed. It could get interesting.
123.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
What I find most mysterious are the article sources (okay, not that mysterious). I've never visited smithsonianmag.com in my life. Yet, there are four articles from that site on the front page right now. Something isn't working
124.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> "should really read Atul Gawandes Being Mortal." PBS Frontline (which consistently produces awesome journalism) recently did a documentary based on this book: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline
125.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Why doesn't the "market" sort this problem out. It will. But "the market" doesn't care about who the winners and losers are. Some of these services are essentially transferring wealth from low-skilled wo
126.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> other than some MBA chose a date at random? I'll bet you 90% of these companies working ridiculous hours are run by programmers.
127.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> We all know there are professions (fire fighters, police, soldiers, nurses, doctors, computer programmers, etc) Which one of those things doesn't belong? 5 of those are responsible for the health and/or lives of other peop
128.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
Or, another version, "programmer who read an inferential statistics tutorial online".
129.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Founders shouldn't take on personal credit risk in order to do a startup. Only in the Silicon Valley bubble, where everyone is all about "other people's money", would someone actually believe this. Back in the rea
130.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> I've reported a crime Your unverifiable anecdote doesn't hold much weight, I'm afraid. But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution repor
131.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so. Of course it doesn't. That's the job of the FBI and legal system to determine.
132.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> but that they apparently have their ears. How so? Anybody can contact the FBI. And when that "someone" happens to be a massive, multi-billion dollar bank reporting a "crime", then I sure hope that they have the FB
133.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
Goldman Sachs was entirely within their rights to contact the FBI if they believed proprietary information was stolen from them by an ex-employee. It's the government (read: FBI) that screwed up here, as is most often the case.
134.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> The reality is a bit more depressing I'm glad you're able to identify "reality" and explain it to the rest of us, wandering around in a fog. > A social life that revolves around doing positive things - fitness,
135.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> We know that alcohol-fuelled harm costs society about £21 billion a year and are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers So you tax it, like Canada does. It's partly why our beer/wine/liquor is relatively expensi
136.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> The engineer from the startup went on and on about how each day there is a challenge and you learn so much. The world of "startups" is filled to the brim with charlatans. "Everybody's killing it." Be skeptic
137.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> But until you can prove that all "well-off" individuals did that, you have no moral ground to stand on. I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you telling me that if we had the technological wherewithal to "
138.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Without slavery how will we ever pick cotton? It's pretty evident how we can pick cotton without slavery. We do it every day. On the other hand, you want to expend resources digging a heavy, precious metal out of the ground to u
139.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Life would be so much easier because then we could just DO THE RIGHT THING instead of arguing about it ENDLESSLY Don't you think economists wish the same? It just isn't the way it works. > We've got some ideas about
140.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Show me the strictly paper money system which has lived 1000 years So nothing can ever exist going forward that hasn't existed already in history? > just like physics and we'd understand it all already. You think we unde
141.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Don't look at the official numbers. They changed the method of calculating inflation to make it seem lower. Look at reality They change the method, then retroactively recalculate the values, because our basket of consumed goods c
142.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Take land - demand for it changes over time, the exact same amount is in circulation as there was 200 years ago, the value goes up as population increases and it becomes more scarce Why is that a good system? Why should people who ha
143.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> yet when it comes to currency someone has decided that we need elaborate schemes Money is a commodity, and the demand for it changes over time. Do you really believe that we should have the same "amount" in circulation as w
144.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Worked pretty well for thousands of years and doesn't allow people to counterfeit. Did it really? Perhaps you should refer to the original definition of "debasement". > I like the idea of my money holding value but
145.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> I seriously doubt investors will prefer to hold US dollars Well, with all due respect, what you doubt doesn't really matter. We're watching it happen. Why would I buy bonds with a negative real yield when I can hold apprec
146.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> It means you can buy an expensive good like a house or a car now and pay for it later. As opposed to saving for years and then getting the car. What about debt to build businesses or infrastructure that creates real wealth?
147.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> until the Fed conjured it up. So in what way would you have money production occur, if not "out of thin air"?
148.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> I find it hard to believe it's the scary monster mainstream economists make it out to be. It isn't really complicated. First, when the value of holding cash gives a positive return, then it changes investment allocations.
149.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Why don't we just collectively forget/forgive our debts, then? I know, right? I mean, why don't I just throw these BofA bonds I own, paying 6.5% annually, into the trash because I don't like money. In the meantim
150.
by hnnewguy 12y ago
> Until people go to jail for the crimes (see Iceland) nothing will get fixed. This is such a bizarre argument. You don't think there were/are oodles of prosecutors frothing at the mouth to throw some bankers in jail? Look a

More ›