legend

Jupiter is just gaming the welfare system.

My motivation to buy a PS4 is increasing.

This work isn't nearly as general as the Science News article makes it sound. That and most of the contributions are theoretical analyses. That's not to shit on theoretical analysis (it's incredibly important to advancing what we do), but this is not some magic wand by any means.

*If* Valve comes out with a bunch of games (the fabled "3" set of games) showing that VR can be used for amazing games, all will be forgiven.

Might be time to get it.

That could indeed make sense to me, but then the way the article was phrased seemed like they were saying that whatever raise in price it will be from competitors, it will cause the market to shrink in a counterproductive way in which no one wins. But then why would competitors raise the price that much? They should only raise it to the extent that they're still getting a win, because they're not under any external pressure to raise at all, just the US. But I may have just badly misread what the article was trying to say.

I was asking why it wouldn't be the case that other sellers would keep prices low to take the market. I think I may be confused about which actors are being referenced in that quote. They raise a few: "American sellers, American buyers, Chinese sellers, Chinese buyers, and finally other countries selling.

The reason that doesn't seem to push through under the context described is because they're saying that the price raises will ultimately hurt businesses because it will drive too many customers away (I perhaps should have quoted the rest to make this more clear). If a raised price is simply bad for the business, but is only required of the US, the competitors would be wise to keep their prices relatively stable, and enjoy an increased market share, rather than similarly rise and drive everyone away, no?

Really? Wouldn't they keep their prices the same to steal the market?

Doing back flips.

Yeah I'm not convinced we've finally reached the long fabled "moment" (or if we ever will). I suspect people thinking that believe that while people defending Trump have long been doing mental gymnastics, that to continue it at this point would require Spiderman-like skill. I really hope that's true, but I think it's very probably that Spiderman will leave impressed.

Oh, I'm not surprised at this point. But the state of affairs of the US from the perspective of just a few years ago is mind blowing.

Mind blowing.

Of course he's bringing in the state media.

I haven't looked into that before. Sounds interesting! I will check it out.

Looks like I should be able to do both. 401K has a much higher limit (18,000) versus ROTH IRA ($5500) from what I can tell.

I can't stress enough how great it felt to pay off the student loans. I totally endorse knocking it out!

Maybe I'm wrong. But at first glance this seems like bad application of the winner's curse. For those unfamiliar, the winner's curse refers to a property of the bidder who wins an auction for which the item has a true value that is roughly equal to every bidder, but isn't known upfront and must be independently estimated by each bidder. In this case, if the average bid of bidders is an accurate representation of the true value of the item, then the winner was someone who incorrectly overestimated the value and is paying more than they should. In that context, a rule of thumb for never being the top or bottom payer makes sense and the HR officer was correct. Except there is a significant failure mode in that. The winner's curse only exists if the average estimate is an accurate reflection of the true value. For a huge number of reasons that are probably obvious to people here, for employee wages, it's entirely possible that the pay wage is a pessimistic reflection of the true value of the worker. And if all bidders are systemically bidding under the true value, the winner won't be cursed. They'll actually be doing the best, because they'll still be underpaying its true value: they'll have a positive net gain, while the competitors gain nothing. That is, the higher payer will get the best workers and still be paying less than their value. What companies should be doing is not assuming the average wage is an accurate estimate. They should actually look at what production they expect to get from a worker and estimate what their value is from there.

Looking again, I think I must have made a mistake before. I think I was looking at the single income limit. Going by what I'm reading, I can contribute $5500 a year to one. So that at least seems like the obvious next thing to do. I think I'll probably still want to do something more on top of that. Money sitting in a checking account beyond what you could reasonably need immediately just seems stupid

Thanks. Yes, you are correct. I meant ROTH. I'll have to double check. Last time I checked the limit seemed lower, because I bring in the sole income between my wife me, but I'm not making that much. So maybe I made a mistake when looking at it. I remember seeing that you would get diminishing amounts you could invest and while I could invest some, not much, and I'd have to do a bit more managing of it to make sure I did it right. Yeah, I know the 401K isn't great for that reason, but the tax free on entry on entry is better than nothing at all. I would prefer ROTH IRA if I can.

Unfortunately, they do not. But it at least has some tax benefit. IRA would be preferable, but I can't make as much use of that from my income limit is my understanding.

Even though I saw all 4 in the overview, cycling through them enlarged one by one is the funniest shit ever when you get to Trump. Wanker is such a good description.

I'll add one other thing bothers me. I don't think it's a spoiler and it starts pretty early on, but I'll mark it anyway.

We shall see! I do plan to finish it.