nrmitchi

36 ms·

391.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
I think a piece that you're missing here is that health problems get drastically worse, and more expensive to fix, when they're not addressed. Problems are often not addressed in a reasonable time frame because many people don&#x2
392.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
One of the problems with the how the US medical system works is that "35K/month in medication" is only "35k/month" because of some expectation that insurance is going to pay whatever the negotiated rate it (and
393.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> If people were regularly getting fucked like that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but it sounds like you're making the claim that people in the US don't regularly end up with massive surprise medical
394.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
It more and more feels like the difference between not having insurance, and having insurance when something bad actually happens is "do I get a massive bill that I can't afford now, or do I get a massive bill that I can't af
395.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
Less savings doesn't mean no savings. It will still for the most part use additional packaging, additional sorting, additional space in trucks, additional labor in terms of locating packages, and additional risk if the driver misses 1&
396.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> if you made a naïve assumption of 3-4 packages per delivery then it's a similar workload But you're still just making an assumption with 0 evidence. I would love to see a distribution of how common multi-package deliveries ar
397.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> an average of 3-4 packages per delivery Do you have any source for this? It seems like a really weird assumption to make, especially given that Amazon will already bundle multiple orders into the same package.
398.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
How about "If it's parked, or actively for sale (within the last X months), you don't get the renewal price."
399.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
I'm not sure if a 10% increase on registration price is going to materially change the math on squatting. My understanding is that squatting is like the VC game; you expect many of them to be complete losses, with a couple giving outsi
400.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
I did this once. The "professional" they connected me with turned out too not actually be a CPA , and was an IRS "Enrolled Agent" instead, and did all of my taxes wrong. I don't mean "the math was a little off
401.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> Many of your points were being lauded as good things just a year ago I'm sure some people did. I personally have never said these were a good thing, and am still not saying they were ever a good thing. > Robinhood made advanc
402.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
My suspicion, which I don't have data to support, is that retail investors where largely screwed over by other retail investors.
403.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> which allow them fulfill their deposit obligations than a discount brokerage Not even just easier access to new capital, but you can be sure they are able to move money faster than someone doing an ACH transaction to Robinhood that wou
404.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> no reason why margin requirements would increase for buyers of a stock but not for the shorts There are tons of reasons why (counter-party risk, correlated risk of brokerages with high exposure, T+2 settlement, etc). You seem particula
405.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> Someone is lying. Or, both people are stating the story from their side, and there is context missing. Robinhood: "We switch off after discussions with the DTCC [about increased reserve requirements which we could not meet]"
406.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
I'm just going to go off the top of my head here. 1. They released a "checking account" that they claimed was FDIC and/or SPIC insured when it was not. (yes, they backed off of this one when they got caught). 2. They&#x2
407.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
Suggesting that a group should be investigated for "their actions" without providing any specifics is straight out of the conspiracy-theory playbook. Any rebuttal is easily countered with "that's not the action I was tal
408.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
Robinhood is and has been manipulative and predatory for years . Arguing that Robinhood did illegal things "for the benefit of their banking partners" or whatever other conspiracy theory you're suggesting is just that, a con
409.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> the flickering fluorescent lights, the noise of coworkers, the smell of burnt coffee or popcorn, the boss that drops by to see how you're doing and causes you to lose a hour of concentration so I might as browse the web until quit
410.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with you that based on the facts, it should happen. But short of siezing all of his still-in-the-US assets, Thiel has $2B-worth-of-reasons to spend decades arguing this in court.
411.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
What do you mean? Just because something is a prohibited transaction doesn't mean there is a magical fairly that ensures you don't. I'm sure you are aware that the audit-rate for wealthy individuals is (and was) significantly
412.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> It is currently illegal to invest your Roth IRA in companies you are an officer/directer etc. As Peter Thiel was CEO of PayPal copying his investment strategy would be illegal. As far as I know, this hasn't changed; it was no
413.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
As discussed previously, this "trick" is actually explicitly not permitted, because you could do something like say "My stock is only work $0.001 each ;)" while simultaneously selling to investors are orders-of-magnitude
414.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
I mean, sure , but that's not really what the commentor meant. They stated "as you go with the decision making"; which really means "don't make financial decisions based on an assumption that your options are going
415.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> you cant sue the worker that made the shake and gave it to you. I mean let's be real, in the US you definitely could. Pretty much anyone can sue anyone for anything. But between suing McDonalds, and suing the close-to-minimum-wage
416.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
You can purchase property with a Roth. It cannot be your primary residence. You have to be entirely hands-off with it. You are not allowed to manage the property, do repairs, etc. You are still not allowed to decree that the value of a hous
417.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
Allowing someone to make a prohibited transaction and then simply pay a 100% penalty after-the-fact, especially when the initial transaction was extremely-low-priced to begin with, is clearly open for abuse. What is to stop me from selling
418.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
Owning 3.5% after a acquisition by/merger with x.com, and raising $200M in funding is not anywhere near the same thing as owning 3.5% at the time of the Confinity founding (which is apparently why $0.001/share is valid?).
419.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
So either PayPal was earlier enough that you can make an argument that a "fair price" was $0.001 per share, OR you can make an argument that Thiel owned less than 10% of the company at the time. Seeing as there were only 3 origina
420.
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> That said, the statute of limitations means you can often get away with things if they go unreported for long enough. What I find most interesting in regards to this is that by the time there was any reportable gain (2002 sale), and th

More ›