wachtwoord

The only reason not curing your kid when it's sick is the following: taking care of the kid is a voluntary responsibility you took upon yourself (explicitly or implicitly). If you don't have such a voluntarily taken responsibility ( e.g. someone took your sperm and impregnated themselves against your will) you have zero responsibility to lift a finger to save the child.

Because to a non-libertarian, anything they consider good is a right and must be mandated by force if necessary and anything they consider bad is pure evil and must be outlawed by force if necessary. There is no grey area between must-do and must-not-do. "I'd likely do it, but I wouldn't force someone else to." is an incomprehensible position. To be completely honest, I consider forcing someone to do 'good' (or punishing him for not doing 'good') evil.

@RichardGibbons railing? :o please go and re-read my very respectfully formulated post. I even say I would likelý do the nice thing. Not doing so is just not evil to me. It's also not nice. How is this hard to understand?

Thought experiment: There's a button in front of you. If you push it, everybody in the world will stop suffering and be forever happy (kidnapped kids held as sex slaves will be freed, cancer patients will be cured, etc), each according to their very own definition of happiness. There's no catch, no downside, nothing bad happens to you if you don't push the button. You're aware of those rules, of everything that's going on, so there's no confusion. I think that if you don't push it, that's an evil act, IMO. I think it's been established that your thought experiment is so far detached from reality that is is not suitable to reflect on morality in the real world. It's actually the very reason why people's morals are often internally inconsistent: if you grant someone what they wish you must deny someone else that very something. Many people think it's 'good' to feed the poor, yet it implies taking resources away from people (or people that granted them those resources) that actually contributed to the world. This is why I personally consider a system people refer to as 'social' extremely unfair (even more unfair than the world in it's state without socialism) and anti-social. For the sake of argument I'll answer the question anyway: No, to me not pressing the button is not evil (it's neutral by definition) but if what you write would be possible I would personally likely press it.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". - Edmund Burke No judgement though, to each his own. I'm honestly not even sure what I would do until I am actually in those circumstances. I'd want more details to estimate life expectancy ^^ The quote is correct. But doing nothing as a "good" men is not evil in itself (of course according to me).

Interesting!

Congrats man, hope she's well :)

I've never understood why the trolley problem is a problem. If I know one group of people and not the other (regardless of group size) I flip the switch to save the group I know. If one group is more attractive than the other, I flip it to kill the uglier group. Otherwise why is it my problem? I leave it alone and yell, "Hey you, idiots, get off the tracks!". I never saw it as a problem for a different reason. Given I don't know any of the people I take no action no matter how large either group. If I take action I'll commit murder which is against my morals. Not taking action to save people is not murder and not against my morals. Not taking action is never a crime to me.

;D

Liberty I'm exactly like you in what you describe above. Extremely relatable.

+2

You already mention it as a drawback but the hindsight bias in this is off the charts and probably disqualifies the entire result. Maybe to reduce it pick up a large number of stocks at high relative multiples at the time you start your analysis and see whether the results hold for the entire group (probably not). The key here is really to identify quality businesses that will survive for decades to come. Can you reliably do this without the advantage of hindsight?

It's so weird though. Uk judges don't recognize Russian prenups? Why?

Exactly what rb says: small (Netherlands) undiversified market, I don't like most companies and diversifying your wealth away from the country where you earn your paycheck is a nice bonus.

Home country bias? Funny, I have an anti-bias to mine :P

I coudn't access and saw an unstyled page with most elements missing.

I've held Altius Minerals for nearly 3 years now. I have a 20% negative return (excluding dividends) on my initial investment but I bought way more on the way down (and sold some of it too). Net on a cost basis I'm up 11% on my position (excluding dividends). I have been investing for 6 years. EDIT: You mean what you're currently holding still? If not, I have quite a few I held for longer. For example MSFT for over 4 years at ~90% return excluding dividends (my first purchase). I think I held BAMM for over 5 years at a small loss. Edit 2: Altius is ~12% of my portfolio. MSFT I think was around 20-25% at the max (after running up).

Thanks for this. Just out of curiosity, did you find your "high returners" on this forum or somewhere else?

SD your understanding is incorrect. With MW you can cryptographically prove the amount of units in circulation at all times so you don't need to see all transactions (and it doesn't have a huge security whole like Zerocoin). If you wish to prove that you made a certain transaction you can still prove that (like with Monero).

Can you elaborate - why would Turing completeness have anything to do with that? The split had to do with the DAO hack, no? There was no hack. There was a programming error in the DAO contract. The "hacker" executed the contract as it was written (not how it was intended, but alas). Personally I consider the hard fork theft (would be an extremely interesting court case!). Anyway,why is this programming error there? Complexity. Turing complete languages allow far too complex constructs to be created which will lead to scripts having "bugs" nearly always (like almost any computer program). Bugs in financial assets just render the whole thing untrustable. BTW: did you know Turing completeness allows the creation of loops (including the infinite variant)? Do the math. BTW2: If anything is interesting it's Mimblewimble (to increase privacy) which would require the Bitcoin script to be extremely simplified instead of made more complex. See here for the white paper: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizardry/mimblewimble.txt

ETH made the choice to become Turing complete and this exposes vulnerabilities making it unsuitable for a high value system (this has happened once already causing the split in ETH and ETC). Stick with Bitcoin and Monero is my advice.

Of course Trump was wire-tapped (so is Obama btw). How are you even questioning this? Also believe in flat-Earth theory perhaps?

Very good article thanks for sharing. Convinced me that they are undervalued on a relative basis at least. Personally the relative tax advantage does not apply to me however. Will consider buying a small position in one or both, but I definitely learned something reading this article. Thanks!

A very large plus on eon this one. If you have an analytical mind simply reading the studies gives you a good idea which studies are bogus.

This is complete nonsense. Excusing Trump's election by "PC drove people to the edge" is utter bull crap. At least if you said that white male entitlement drove people to vote for Trump, you might be a bit closer to truth. What the white males are entitled now? It's entitlement that is the issue here indeed, but not of white males but of a generation of special snowflakes.