HN user

mech765

71 karma
Posts0
Comments38
View on HN
No posts found.

As an example: there are genuine cases of masochists that are subjectively happier because pain is being inflicted on them. In many of these cases no serious harm is done to their body. Your claim "you can't trust their reported state" is either 1) a claim that the outside observer knows better than the individual what their subjective state is or 2) that the health of the subject is more important than their subjective happiness.

If you are arguing for #1, I disagree. If you are arguing for #2, you should be more clear about why/how you keep using the word "objectively".

People can feel less happy when there is a lack of challenge in their life. Consider the example of the guy that spends his life wasting away in front of video games, going for impulsive pleasures instead of long term rewarding goals.

I would guess that each person has a different ideal level and variety of suffering (or responsibility, or challenge, or whatever you want to call it), for which their personality is best suited. We are so far removed from the challenges of the past that we don't know what the subjective experience would be like.

Rising Instability 3 years ago

When interest rates for new bonds go up, the value of existing bonds go down. This only ever matters if you intend to resell the bond. If you hold it to maturity, you will get the same payout as you agreed to. However, if you try to sell your old bond with 3 percent yield, when bond buyers can go grab a bond with a 5 percent yield, they will pay you a lower price.

Seems like the rich are able to save more for retirement than the poor, and will use the most effective means to do so.

Contribution limits to retirement plans mean that for a billionaire, their 401k or IRA balance is very unlikely to be a significant portion of their portfolio. The typical case I can imagine for this would be putting their roughly $20,000 worth of 401k contributions into company stock every year and then seeing their company go 100x.

(posting from cell w/ other account)

You haven't given any indication that you have considered any of my points in any meaningful way. I'm just gonna accept the fact that you want to continue your linguistic mission and disengage. Judging by your comment history you have a habit of winning wars of attrition.

Please at least consider the idea that being the censorious force in the world can worsen the quality of discussion.

I worked on a project where we tried to get the packing seal in the stem of a valve to pass a test certifying that it had a low leakage rate (fugitive emissions testing) for natural gas applications.

We used the highest grade seal and followed all design recommendations from the seal manufacturer. Still never passed.

I think that calling it random is a mischaractetization. It's more of "market movements are caused by a combination of millions of people trading on millions of narratives and data points, and when news breaks, much of the new associated information has already been priced in."

It is perfectly legal to start a company as a co-op, or as any other non-traditional structure. There's an argument to be made that corporations have a growth advantage because their profit motive makes them grow faster than other structures. How would you propose balancing that?

This is the short term during a market disruption where supply is constrained due to an avian flu outbreak. Long term prices will fall back to normal.

The difference between the cheap eggs of 2 years ago and the expensive eggs of today is not that too many egg companies merged.

Blaming all high prices on anticompetitive behavior is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In today's inflationary environment, forgiving the loans will have an effect of increasing the money supply (roughly-quantity of dollars in circulation). Even if nobody ever pays increased taxes because of the loan forgiveness, everybody has to take on the burden of somewhat higher inflation to make up for it.