HN user

dr_doom

117 karma

I write software at Continuum Analytics.

Posts3
Comments61
View on HN

Unlikely. I have never had a facebook and with the exception of spotify, which now has email sign up, no service I use has required fb to log in.

I'm pretty sure that's what the hearings are going to focus on. They may also throw in a little 'anyone can anonymously fund terrorists!' considering the sessions were called by the Committee on Homeland Security.

I posted a link further down in the thread about the majority of Texas supporting recreational and medical cannabis use, quoting from the study

"Respondents whose age fell between 30 and 65 were most likely to be in support of the measures, with the 18-29 age group being the most unsure. Those 65 and older showed the least support but were still a part of the majority approval"

I'm not. Police don't usually go after small time users. Any good city cop can find a trap house and pinpoint the crack heads going in and out. It's a waste of resources to arrest them though, they want the distributors.

BUT I also never thought they would bust SR dealers...

[dead] 13 years ago

I think all libertarians would answer yes to your question.

For example, public transport and housing is terrible in the Bay so private buses are all over SF now.

I knew there was I reason I always liked your posts.

If you're ever in Austin drop me a line and we can have a chat. The CA community is pretty strong down here and growing thanks to people like Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed.

I agree completely. I studied Finance but had a work study with an econ professor and was amazed at how much hand waving existed in their economic models.

I felt like I was charting very simple things(gdp, oil prices, ect) and he would come up with his own suspect analysis off that limited info.

The worst part was that this guy had had a high ranking position in the presidents cabinet!

I'm just curious as how a relatively small group of people can be responsible for affecting the price of gold? By all accounts libertarians are a small section of the populace yet you suggest they are driving up the price and causing a bubble in the trillion gold dollar market.

It's hard to find solid data but this old article[1] states that $15,200bn worth of gold was traded in one quarter alone. I find it impossible that any one group of people can cause a bubble when that amount of gold is being moved around, much less the tiny slice of americans who consider themselves Austrians/libertarians.

My second issue is with the idea that gold is in a bubble at all. Despite a couple of spikes the price has been about $1600 an ounce for the past 2 years.

The trader/investor in me suggests that it was rising steadily for a decade until it reached a fair market price. Everyone from Goldman Sacs[2] to leftist George Soros[3] to libertarian Kyle Bass[3] suggest gold is getting boring and are bearish.

So I'm not sure where you are getting this info that gold is in bubble territory?

1. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eb342ad4-daba-11e0-a58b-00144...

2. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-10/goldman-lowers-g...

3. http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/investing/soros-gold/index.h...

4. http://bloom.bg/11P3V3V

EDIT: I love the downvotes from people who can't answer how Austrians are causing non-existent gold bubbles. Not like central banks bought more gold in 2012 than any other year since 1964[1]... it has to be those pesky libertarians and their love of this barbaric relic.

1. http://www.business2community.com/finance/central-banks-gold...

That is why I put problem in quotes, I was responding to the parents reply about migration.

I actually favor more open immigration, my grandparents were some of those mexicans who came illegally and had a great life.

It's important to note that California is just as bad or worse in a lot of those areas.

All the things you mentioned are pretty bad in California. Public education is terrible, traffic is outrageous, there is a huge immigration 'problem', and the forest fires are pretty bad. To each his own but Californian leadership isn't really that great.

I just can't decide who is worse Perry or Brown.

I also wouldn't call Austin the middle of nowhere. Within a 3 hour drive are Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio each being in the top 10 for populous cities. Arguably, Chicago is more isolated.

Is Oakland really that bad? I really want the most affordable place I can find.

I'm not too scared of crime, I have guns and grew up in a lower class neighborhood, but am worried about theft when I'm not home.

edit: I would basically like to live in a neighborhood like Pilsen in Chicago. Affordable, working class, mexican, and close to transit. Any recommendations?

I'm a Mullvad customer and a big, big fan.

They have great clients for ubuntu and my android phone, and are super fast. No problems or complaints here.

Would HN recommend grad school for a friend that just graduated with a biochem degree from a tier 2/3 school?

I ask because he makes it seems like there are hundreds of well paying biotech and pharmaceutical positions that are easy to get in the Boston area. He didn't go to a top science school(Georgetown) and his grades are mediocre, so I imagine he could only get into an ok phd program. But then again what other options are available for undergrad science majors with no interest in programming, even though I tell him it could really separate him from the rest of the biochem pack.

Any insight from ya'll, I don't know anything about east coast research positions.