Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | maxioatic's comments login

I might have missed it but did they mention Spotlight at all? That'd be pretty sweet if Spotlight becomes more useful (even a little bit)


> based on what was published in Michael Lewis' "Going Infinite”

No. You can’t posit anything about SBF based on this book.


My takeaway was that he was a lunatic, not particularly thoughtful and had an infinite risk tolerance


VTI and chill


It was about table saws, not circular saws. There’s a big difference between the two. Table saw accidents often result in losing fingers and it’s not that difficult to mess up while using one.

There’s a well known, proven, easy solution to table saw accidents called SawStop. It’s basically as obvious to use as a seat belt is if you want to be safe. The only problem is those table saws are very expensive.

Social media doesn’t have an existing and obvious solution (besides not using it).


Isn't SawStop patent encumbered? AFAIK the three point seat belt design's patent was made open by Volvo at the time, so the patent didn't hold back adoption.


Yes - in fact the whole company was started by a patent attorney.

SawStop says they'll release one patent (which is about to expire anyway) but they've got a huge portfolio of other ones, and companies like Grizzly say that SawStop is unwilling to engage with them in good faith on licensing their technology.

Bosch released a saw with similar tech, except unlike SawStop it didn't use overpriced consumables every time it triggered. SawStop sued the product off of the market.

The company founder also serves as an expert witness when people shove their hands into moving saw blades, then sue the saw makers - testifying that the makers should be held liable because they haven't licensed his invention.

Of course, I'm sure for SawStop getting all their competitors banned will be a highly profitable decision; it's no surprise they're lobbying for it.


Sawstop did sue Bosch, but then changed their mind and gave them a free license immediately after the case was won. It was boschs decision not to release their product in the US for whatever reason.


The CEO committed to releasing the one remaining patent to the public domain earlier this year.


SawStop has publicly pledged to dedicate their patents to the public if this becomes mandated.


I think this could be aptly summarized as "you can't accidentally slip and become depressed" using social media. You can absolutely slip and lose one or several fingers or your entire hand using a table saw.

The more pertinent comparison would be alcohol IMO: none of the people who want "something" done about social media seem to have a problem with the widespread, massive use of alcohol within society and the incredible amounts of continuous and ongoing damage it does.


>I think this could be aptly summarized as "you can't accidentally slip and become depressed" using social media

I think the point is exactly that you can.


No you can't. You can, through usage over a long period of time, and by ignoring a lot of good advice, create problems for yourself just like anything else.

If a table saw could only remove your hand after years of dedicated usage, then sawstop wouldn't be the obviously good idea it is.

Hence why the comparison to alcohol is much more apt, and yet, mysteriously - absent in the discussion.


These read like distinctions without differences.

Damage from social media use is gradual and insidious. Additionally, it's designed to be addictive, slowly pulling users in. There is no threshold that announces itself when users are addicted or have begun to "ignore a lot of good advice".

There's also no absence of discussion around the dangers of alcohol or drugs. And, there are actual laws regulating or outright banning their use.

But, even if it was absent from the discussion, that would not absolve social media. Is every world issue rendered illegitimate if we don't also mention the dangers of alcohol with equal fervor? It seems a random, meaningless requirement.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.


I think every issue is due consideration in the context of "do I personally not care about the thing I want to regulate about everyone else?"

Alcohol is a useful yardstick, because it was banned (to considerable disaster), almost everyone likes it, the misusers tend to not realise it till considerably later, and we've got studies which look dire on the cost to society of it in fiscal terms.

If what you're calling for would seem ridiculous if it were applied to alcohol, then maybe it's just going be ineffective or you just don't have any "skin in the game" so to speak: after all, both serve a considerably important social cohesion function as well.

Which to loop it back around is why trying to compare social media regulation to something like mandating sawstop is especially disingenuous.


So, if there's not an easy solution, we should de-emphasize the problem?


That’s not what I meant. It’s hard to compare these two problems because one is effectively solved (table saw) and one is not (social media).


People need mental healthcare too. Done. Solved. Treat it like any addiction.

Of course the trick is that social media access doesn't require folks to pay an upfront cost, so it's harder to slap the cost of this additional service on the transaction. But of course as financial regulation makes banks do KYC and file SARs (suspicious activity report) social media regulations could do something similar. (Hurray more surveillance saves the day!)


I see. Just seems a bit circular, as the original question implies creating solutions.

Also, seems like an odd gating criteria for whether or not people support the idea of regulating social media (i.e. per the specific thrust of the original question).


Happy to see YNAB mentioned. I actually had no idea they used to have a desktop app!

I’m a happy subscriber though and to me its yearly cost is easily made up by how much money I save using it.


I believe it's only five months of health insurance since it says "Five months of benefit continuation". It does also say "Continued access to Modern Health through the end of 2024", but Modern Health is a mental health platform.


But then I have to pay taxes on it.

Time to full send my retirement accounts into these ETFs so I can retire early. /s

Actually though I might consider allocating a tiny percentage (1-3%) to these. Seems like fairly low risk with enough upside, but who knows.


These are cash creates not in kind creates. So there is no escaping taxes. You will be paying capital gains just by holding spot Bitcoin ETFs

Edit: after further research it appears that the cash create mechanism doesn't cause a tax event for shareholders as it does with mutual funds. See https://www.grayscale.com/blog/legal-topics/addressing-poten...

We will have to see how every Bitcoin ETF is structured. YMMV depending on this structure and how you get taxed.


I think the parent is talking about buying the ETF inside a tax sheltered account.


Indeed I was, thanks for clarifying.


Ok. Not a terrible idea to be in high growth/high return assets in qualified accounts.


What do you mean? self-custodying BTC is still unrealized gains until you sell, so no tax either.


BTC ETF in in a 401K/IRA can be contributed, grow, or possibly be withdrawn tax-free depending on how you set it up. Coinbase reports your gains and you owe taxes on them. (Don't think Coinbase has an IRA/401K option for custody. Yet.)


I was referring to the capital gains tax you pay for selling BTC on an exchange. I was thinking specifically about Roth IRAs, where any gains are tax free, but a 401k or similar would work too.


Haven't heard this take before. What are your thoughts on high frequency trading shops and the regular stock market?


I think they suck just like crypto, these are all mechanisms rigging the economy in favor of the already wealthy. If we don't unrig it we will eventually get civil war. Popular immiseration eventually leads to upheaval.

Checkout the book - End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration by Peter Turchin


Already wealthy? I don't think you know the scene well. HFT probably pulled more physics and math grads out of poverty than any other field.


It's also pulled those grads away from more typical jobs they'd have building useful things and actually producing new real-world value.


Real world value for which they'll be paid post-doc/PhD wages and be carrying student debt like Sisyphus carries his boulder for all eternity.


What if the work these folks do to increase market efficiency does produce real-world value, as slower verifiable economic information would increase periods of uncertainty and price slippages?

Or the HFT engineers producing research and products that speed up general compute, such as accelerating SHA and ED25519 signature verification, so that their trading shops get information faster?

I wonder if there are actually a lot of third-order, downstream effects that society gets by paying engineers to just make computers and telecommunications faster.


Slippage in the price of cabbages at my corner market? I don't think so.

There's very good evidence that as the finance sector grows to be a larger portion of the economy (which it very much is compared to 50 years ago) that increasing inequality goes along with it, as the profits made in the finance sector are mostly rent seeking from the rest of the economy. You could also interpret it as a private tax on all other economic activity.


Just look at UK... Largely based on finance sector and it does look pretty bleak for those outside... And I am not even sure if that is yet the end state...

There is some value there, but the cut they get is likely too large already. Then again it is all just fake numbers...


The fact that this comment was grey from downvotes when I found it is the most HN thing on the planet.


Yes, they might create more non-monetary value elsewhere, but that trades off against what non-monetary value the money they make creates now.


I don't really want to start a debate on how HFT produces real-world value, but just consider that if these things you talk about are really useful and valuable, they might also provide competitive salaries to attract people?


What pays the most only loosely correlates with what produces the most value for society. It's easy to skim a percent here and there off hundreds of billions in volume shuffling around without the owners of those billions caring much, but it's much more difficult to see how that, on the whole, actually improves the condition of your neighborhood.


At least with stocks you actually own cash flows. Cryptos produce nothing.


Ethereum has a perpetual buy back mechanism via burning and staking currently gives about 2.7% a year without MEV


Someday people will catch on the Ethereum actually has a PE ratio.


They produce financial services. Miners have cash flows from the transaction fees.


If you are upset at trading shops or the stock market as a retail trader, you dont understand the game you are playing.


This guy is in every single crypto thread here spouting anti crypto nonsense. Don't expect an actual in depth take.


What do you mean by roaming here? Assuming it's data, the big 3 are not affordable in my opinion.

Version and AT&T each charge $10 per day for international data, and T-Mobile's cheapest plan with international data is $90/month.


T-mobile has free low speed data, reasonable calling/text rates and a $35 10-day 5GB pass and $50 30-day 15 GB passes. Works for me to avoid the hassle of local sims.


Airlo makes this pretty painless: https://www.airalo.com/


Interesting, thanks. I didn't find that mentioned anywhere on their site. That does seem decently affordable.


Instead... "After law school, candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and create a portfolio of legal work that bar officials will grade as an alternative to the traditional bar exam."

You can still take the bar exam if you want.


This has nepotism and pay-to-play written all over it


How? If anything, this gives a path forward for people who can't afford to take months away from work to study for the bar exam or pay Barbri for a prep course. Compare it to professional pilots, who can work towards the 1500 hours they need for their ATP license while getting paid to do flight instructing, towing banners, flying charters or cargo, and so forth.


Sure, some will undoubtedly have a smoother path based on their circumstances.

But combining people who want to profit with more people who want to "do lawyer things" is a bad recipe.


How do they grade work that is subject to privilege?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: