toss892625

Previously, Google displayed the relevant 3rd party links (or, paid links), and Google didn't take responsibility for the content.

This clear boundary was blurred once google started auto-summarizing results with some sort of knowledge panel, which was frequently wrong. Google 1st party data has more weight & liability to it than a link to 3rd party sites. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/10-months... https://www.vox.com/recode/22550555/google-search-knowledge-... https://www.executiveprivacy.com/resources/when-google-gets-...

Already these AI searches provide fatal advice (suggesting 40+ mile hiking days in the desert, lying about the distance between water sources & campsites), this example about the plane, inaccurate dosage of substances, etc. Essentially, any time there's a number that can be wrong with a serious outcome, these services will bullshit the number with disastrous consequences. And there's no 3rd party to hide behind now. There's no 'just a link' - a trillion dollar corporation is directly responsible for these results.

Sort of like manual-driven-cars vs self-driving-cars, removing the millions of small 3rd parties could change who is responsible for the outcome. Rushing these out could be setting the stage for the next tobacco / opioid / talc lawsuits.

In high-tax states, where Federal + State taxes exceed 50%, it is now possible (but rare!) to 'make money' by donating.

Let's take someone with a 53% marginal income tax, living in NYC. The person has stock with a basis of $0.0 with a current value of $10, and has held the stock for less than a year (short term capital gains = ordinary income rates). Separately, they have $1,000,000 of income.

Scenario 1) Donating the stock would produce a $10 tax deduction, worth $5.3.

Scenario 2) Selling the stock would produce $10 of returns - $5.3 in income tax = $4.7

In this scenario, donating the stock produces higher returns compared selling the stock. It's a fairly obtuse scenario, since it's rare for the cost-basis to be so low, time-span to be so short, and to have a good use for a tax deduction. It becomes much more likely when a completely illiquid & price inflated stock is donated. If a large chunk of illiquid stock is sold, it'll crash. But donating an inflated chunk of stock would lock in the tax deduction.

Donating shares of a stock when a person knows insider information is called 'insider giving', and is highly prevalent & largely unenforced. https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/insider-giving-avci-vol71-i....

The problem is that there is no car loan in this case; he's paying for the car in cash, and borrowing in the investment account instead.

In both scenarios, let's say we have 60k in stocks to start.

Starting point: 60k stocks

Scenario A: 1 car, (30k car loan), 60k stocks

Scenario B: 1 car, 60k stocks, (30k debt in margin account)

Let's say the market drops by 50%, then recovers by 100% overnight.

At midnight:

Scenario A: 1 car, (30k car loan), 30k stocks

Scenario B: 1 car, 30k stocks, (30k debt in margin account)

Position is closed, so now Scenario B is: 1 car

In the morning, the world goes back to normal:

Scenario A: 1 car, (30k car loan), 60k stocks

Scenario B: 1 car

While we had the same amount of debt in both cases, in scenario A, there's no instant way for the car loan provider to instantly declare that you don't have liquidity at midnight.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16474938 https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-figures-out-everyone-youve-...

The fact that 90% of your friends upload contacts/emails is plenty of information about you.

Reducing the free loan you provide to a bank with a checking account is good, but be very careful with leverage. IMO any leverage should be a very deliberate decision.

If you buy a 30k car/tuition one day (depending on how much you have invested, this could be a lot of leverage!), and the market crashes by 50% the next day, would you be ruined? It's possible that even if the stock immediately recovers from some flash crash, you'll have insufficient collateral and the positions will be closed. (Locking in huge losses at the worst time during some irrational panic)

EDIT:

I suppose this is no more risky than buying something on a credit card, then selling a stock to pay off the card after a month. Still, Schwab can't get your credit card balance and close a position in real time, whereas they can with this leverage strategy.

FUCKING HELL.

The rent is 2.5k * 12 = 30k a year. If someone makes $15/h * 2000 hours a year = 30k. 100% of income on a 1BR. Is your fucking view worth the costs you impose on others?

Enjoy your artificial restrictions on supply, as everyone with even one grain of common sense moves to Texas or Washington.

P.S. Rich software morons can afford it, but just because they can doesn't mean they want to get ripped off by (30k rent) + (20k state taxes) a year. Location is sticky, but once they get the equivalent job literally ANYWHERE else, they will take it, or an internal transfer.

'market-driven urban planning practices'

National Flood Insurance Program subsidizes building in flood-prone areas. Doesn't sound very market-driven to me.

You include the number 0, and exclude the number 60,000. As a result, the correct number number of possibilities is 39365.

The probability is 39365/60000