In the Black Swan he talks about his endeavor with the stock market and how lucky he got by chance, and not by using some pseudo scientific formulas and whatnot to "predict" how his stocks would do. He also gave some pretty good advice when it comes to the stock market
The whole book is just awesome, I'd recommend giving it a read
Are there 100 people who know finance and think carefully like Nassim taleb? What do their outcomes look like? I would bet all of them do pretty well. (I'm not even a big Taleb fan.)
This is just like the startup founder argument. Every one which succeeds ends up having a tremendously interesting background demonstrating unique interest and capability.
Every scientific endeavor is about predicting the future. Imagine your 3 closest friends wanted you to invest in your business. Could you predict which of them would likely do better than the others?
Not even close to being a single-party problem. I know it's almost Halloween but you can do better than jumping out from around the corner yelling "Nancy Pelosi!"
>But it's true. I could name half a dozen people that I think can compound $1 million at 50% per year -- at least they'd have that return expectation -- if they needed it. They'd have to give that $1 million their full attention. But they couldn't compound $100 million or $1 billion at anything remotely like that rate.
Yep, you also wouldn't give the same computer/software advice to your grandma as you would a peer at work. Buffet is telling us to leave trading to the pros, but he absolutely trades.
Buffet is arguably the best who’s ever done it. He can do things your layperson shouldn’t try. Just because Bruce Lee could do an impressive spin kick, it doesn’t make spin kicks a good idea for 99% of people to try in a self defense situation.
Sort of, not really? Most of BRK is invested in 100% wholly owned companies. They do have a "small"[0] public equity portfolio, that does change investments periodically, but most of those investments are also pretty long term, if you go look.
The price system is how our society allocates resources. The fact that people are allocating their own resources to buy one -- without any perverse incentives or being compelled, indicates it's not wasteful to them.
A better example of waste is when local governments funds things which people don't use.
I think the root of this sentiment is misunderstanding or lack of satisfaction at the system level.
Let's hope being stuck at home for a year is not a cyclical event! That's what drove a lot of it, not FOMO. Building a home office, using a kitchen multiple times a day, schooling from home...
We can and do reasonably infer mental states from actions.
If someone knows they are sending innocent people to prison, benefits from doing so, and continues doing so we can reasonably infer they lack morality.
Most internal mental states that have any impact on the actions of an individual are leaky. That is because they affect actual real world actions.
So given a set of actions you can infer a likely set of mental states — this is also done in the court room. Can you always infer with 100% accuracy and with every colorful detail fleshed out? No. Do you typically need to? No.
And we have we gone through that process to look at the issue from all sides and hear arguments from all parties? No.
You don't need to know intent to fire or punish someone anyway. In this case we can dismiss people for improper action, without demeaning them personally.
If you read my post again you will notice I didn't say anything about the situation at hand. I just refuted your general statement that one cannot reason about mental states from the visible actions.
I agree that one should be cautious with early accusations or hopping on trains just because they are rolling.
Yeah, but my comment doesn't has to be. I am allowed to go into your direction, generalize your statement or put it into a different environment and examine it. How else should people discuss things?
Maybe? Not my cup of tea, but if I didn't trust my wife, and she allowed me to track her, maybe that'd solve whatever hypothetical problem we were having. Very unlikely, but I don't think the idea itself, doomed to fail or not, is a problem if both parties consent.
Which is what you do when you work for an employer that wants to track your entries/exits into their buildings. You consent to allowing systems to be put in place that serve as placeholders for when trust isn't yet or won't be established.
