R3qn65's recent activity
-
Comment on Where can I find the best lanyard? in ~life.style
-
Comment on The people do not yearn for automation in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentI really admire this response. The world would be better if more people had the humility to say "maybe I went too far" instead of doubling down. A couple of thoughts-- overall your despair seems...I really admire this response. The world would be better if more people had the humility to say "maybe I went too far" instead of doubling down.
A couple of thoughts-- overall your despair seems linked to a belief that AI companies are 1) bringing about the end of the world and 2) doing it on purpose. In short, I don't think AI will be the end of the world and I don't think AI companies are doing it on purpose. Or maliciously, at least. More below.
I agree that society has an obligation to stop those perpetrating violence (though I would double down on your point about the means being important. For force to be legitimate, it must be just, as in carried out by the state.) But: even if we accept that causing massive job losses is systemic violence (by no means a bulletproof claim), we don't even know that that's going to happen yet! Throughout history new technologies have generally created more jobs on net, not less. Honestly I'm not quite sure what you mean about mass slavery or mass starvation. I don't really see how AI leads to that and I'm pretty familiar with the policy space. I can think of a few links to war, but... I'm not calling you out so much as pointing out that these futures are far from guaranteed either.
And yes, all the major AI labs talk about job replacements a lot. But they're concerned about it, not gleeful. That's why the major CEOs have openly supported UBI, for instance. The point here is that they're trying to create technology that they believe will make the world better - that will help cure diseases, reduce suffering, etc. So regardless of results, even their intentions aren't evil. Dario Amodei has this whole essay titled, in full seriousness, "machines of loving grace."
Sam Altman does not draw a salary from OpenAI and has no equity in the company. I’m not shilling for Altman - I do not like him - but that's a little-known fact and is vital context. Obviously he'll benefit from the company's success, but not in the way most people think. It is not the move of a supervillian who cares only for his own wallet so that he can retreat to his bunker.
So: there's no reason to believe the world will end. The possibilty that things might get worse is no excuse for violence, and things might even get better. And if we set aside the consequences and judge AI CEOs on their intentions, their intentions seem to mostly be good, even if they are not necessarily good or admirable people.
Nihilism is so easy. Especially now, when many people feel that times are hard. Many of us find it easy to agree with the frustrations expressed in Ted kaczynski's manifesto. But what does carrying it out look like in practice? Murdering a bunch of entirely innocent Federal workers. And then look at the other side of things - the world, since 1979, when the Unabomber wrote technological slavery, is safer, freer, and more compassionate. He was wrong.
So too are his modern day equivalents.
-
Comment on The people do not yearn for automation in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentGenerally, I think most people would consider this advocating for violence. Like, if you saw someone saying these things about some other cause, would you view this speech as a problem? In any...I'm not advocating for [violence]
We have rags. We have empty bottles. And although they're working on it, we can still afford fuel… there's a good time to put down a rabid dog when it's trying to eat our childrens' faces.
Generally, I think most people would consider this advocating for violence. Like, if you saw someone saying these things about some other cause, would you view this speech as a problem?
In any event, your entire argument rests on violence being necessary to resist tyranny. There are two problems with this:
-
Violence is less effective than nonviolence, and by some metrics makes nonviolence movements less likely to succeed. Let’s say we accept your premise, that we need to do a calculated use of violence to create fear in “specific public officials” (i.e. Sam Altman) without stating a specific political objective. What happens next? Let’s say he’s scared out of the market or simply killed. Either way, he’s not the CEO anymore. But OpenAI doesn’t close! AI’s not over!
-
OpenAI is not tyranny. It is not government-imposed force. Nobody is making you use OpenAI. Yes, I recognize that there’s an argument that OpenAI is lobbying the government, is close with Trump, etc. There’s an argument that AI could be very bad for the economy as a whole. But that is a far stretch from being tyranny, and an even farther stretch from being the sort of tyranny that would then justify violence.
Hopefully I haven’t crossed from passionate into mean. Generally, I like your posts and you seem a decent sort. But Choco, when you write something like “well, I definitely don't support poorly targeted lashing out using misplaced violence,” don’t you see that that’s what every violent organization in history has said? Violence begets violence. It always grows, and innocent people are always victimized.
-
-
Comment on NHTSA tells US Congress: advanced impaired driving detection tech isn't ready in ~transport
R3qn65 Link ParentThat's totally true and a valuable addition, though I think my overall point stands.That's totally true and a valuable addition, though I think my overall point stands.
-
Comment on NHTSA tells US Congress: advanced impaired driving detection tech isn't ready in ~transport
R3qn65 Link ParentNo. Not even a little bit. Look, in a vacuum this stuff always sounds good at first glance. But it never justifies surveillance of the entire population to try to prevent a crime only ever...it’s not worth stopping 12,000 people from dying every year?
No. Not even a little bit. Look, in a vacuum this stuff always sounds good at first glance. But it never justifies surveillance of the entire population to try to prevent a crime only ever committed by a tiny minority.
Moreover, 12,000 people sounds like a lot, but it's not even a third of all traffic-related fatalities every year, which themselves cause fewer deaths than liver cirrhosis. So we can't even argue that we'd be addressing a top cause of death.
Last I heard this technology was planned to be added to the cars of people with a history of drunk driving, not every car.
Third sentence of the linked article:
which included a provision that forced the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to mandate "advanced impaired-driving prevention technology" in all new passenger vehicles.
-
Comment on NHTSA tells US Congress: advanced impaired driving detection tech isn't ready in ~transport
R3qn65 LinkI am so, so against this, in the same way I oppose things like passively scanning your iCloud account to make sure there's no CSAM, etc. I don't think the benefits to public safety outweigh the...I am so, so against this, in the same way I oppose things like passively scanning your iCloud account to make sure there's no CSAM, etc. I don't think the benefits to public safety outweigh the cost to private privacy and freedom. And yet I'd never heard of this provision before!
Good for the NHTSA for at the very least not implementing a half-baked solution.
-
Comment on What are your go-to meals that you cook? in ~food
R3qn65 LinkWhat do low effort and beginner mean to you? Even just posting a recipe you like will help us calibrate, I think.What do low effort and beginner mean to you? Even just posting a recipe you like will help us calibrate, I think.
-
Comment on Single, solo, poor, woman gets $500k pre-tax, how to make the most of it? in ~finance
R3qn65 Link ParentGood to hear. And you may already have recognized this, but making even 20k will be more significant than it might seem at first glance. Even if you only make 20k, if you can live on 30, that...Good to hear.
And you may already have recognized this, but making even 20k will be more significant than it might seem at first glance. Even if you only make 20k, if you can live on 30, that would let you pull only 10 from the principal. On average that 50/50 investment blend should make you about 20k, in real terms. What that means is that your principal would actually grow instead of shrink, and could last you your entire life. You'd also be able to start drawing more from it to improve your quality of life in a few years.
Point being that making 20k and keeping your sanity is still okay, if the alternative is making 30 and having your mental health collapse.
As a final note, because of the way returns work, the less you can draw, for as long as possible, the better off you'll be. (Basically - larger principal makes more money, more time with larger principal in the market is good.)
-
Comment on My journey to the microwave alternate timeline in ~food
R3qn65 LinkI remember reading this one! Kenji from Serious Eats and Nathan from Modernist Cuisine have a lot of interesting stuff on microwaves too.I remember reading this one! Kenji from Serious Eats and Nathan from Modernist Cuisine have a lot of interesting stuff on microwaves too.
-
Comment on Single, solo, poor, woman gets $500k pre-tax, how to make the most of it? in ~finance
R3qn65 Link ParentYeah that would be bad. My intent was for her to take the distributions over 10 years, for sure.Yeah that would be bad. My intent was for her to take the distributions over 10 years, for sure.
-
Comment on Single, solo, poor, woman gets $500k pre-tax, how to make the most of it? in ~finance
R3qn65 Link ParentFor sure. To your point, I'd considered adding a disclaimer to my original comment about how personal psychology might change the validity of the advice, but I couldn't think of a good way to...Whether any stock investments are appropriate at all depends on how you feel about risk. Someone who has a fairly strong faith that stocks will eventually go up (the way Bogleheads do) can wait a few years if they go down for them to come back again. Other people worry more and would have a hard time dealing with that. It’s pretty easy to argue that stocks do eventually go up on average, but they can be down for years, and people have to decide for themselves whether they are sufficiently convinced to not worry too much in that situation.
For sure. To your point, I'd considered adding a disclaimer to my original comment about how personal psychology might change the validity of the advice, but I couldn't think of a good way to phrase it that wasn't like 500 words long so I just deleted it. It also becomes somewhat more complicated in that:
Generally, I would agree with you re: stocks being optional. Her situation is somewhat unique, though. She needs the principal to last as long as possible, the amount of the principal is unlikely to increase, and her horizon could be legitimately 50+ years. The only way to come even close to meeting those constraints is with a fairly equity-heavy portfolio. I think you're familiar with the 4% rule - if you have a bond-only portfolio, it becomes impossible to maintain the principal because average real t-bill returns are something like 0.9%. That's just not enough growth. You end up needing an absurdly large principal to sustain itself, or even not just draw down quickly. Not a big deal if you're retiring at 65 with SS, but a huge deal if you're 40 who can't really expect to get a lot back from SS in 27 years anyway.
Any money made inside the IRA is tax free (until withdrawal) and at least some of that money likely wouldn’t need to be withdrawn for years, so any stock investments that might grow a lot should probably be in the IRA?
That would be optimal, most likely. I debated this for a little bit, but ultimately decided it would be better to recommend a plan I thought the OP was more likely to be able to follow. There's very little chance they ever end up paying taxes either way, so it probably doesn't matter too much.
any money from a job will help to avoid having to spend it.
Yeah, I think this is key. I just don't see a way out of getting a job.
-
Comment on Single, solo, poor, woman gets $500k pre-tax, how to make the most of it? in ~finance
R3qn65 (edited )LinkI am very sorry for your loss. I admire that you're looking for advice, even in such a tough time. I echo the others in that your situation is pretty complicated and a financial advisor would be...I am very sorry for your loss. I admire that you're looking for advice, even in such a tough time.
I echo the others in that your situation is pretty complicated and a financial advisor would be good to help with the RMDs. That said, my guess is that if you had a good financial advisor available, you would've gone to them and not here. So I'm going to respond to two things I haven't seen others touch on first and then talk about what to actually do with the money.
This comment is going to start kind of negative. It's not in any way personal, I'm just concerned about your situation and want to address some concerns up front. I'll end positive and with actionable advice.
I know this feels like a lot of money. I know it feels life-changing. And in a lot of ways it is! But it's not enough. I say this because I see you've mentioned stuff like going out to eat more often, and I 100% get it, and my chest aches a little bit typing this, but you're still in financial crisis. You can't relax yet. Specifically,
-
I would really recommend against investing the money into your small business. There's not a lot of detail on what your business is, but candidly speaking most small businesses fail. I know it may seem like a chance to double down, but this money is all you have, right? It would be really tragic for your business to absorb it all without becoming profitable and have you be left with nothing. You haven't received enough to materially change your situation, meaning that if you weren't able to launch the business when you were getting monthly money from your dad, you probably won't be able to do it now either.
-
Getting a job is probably going to be necessary. Look, I totally get not wanting to sacrifice your mental health gains and that the world is tough, but you really don't have many other options. The great news is that this gift from your dad is keeping you from having to just immediately start at the local Walmart or whatever. What I would recommend is drawing enough of the principal to live on while you actively look for a job you can at least tolerate. Even working something part time will make a massive difference in your financial situation.
It's not enough to live on forever because the rule of thumb is that you can draw 4% of well-invested principal without depleting it (meaning you can draw it forever). In your case, that'd be 20,000/yr, which is already less than you've been getting. But - unfortunately - 4% is in a best-case scenario. It requires reasonably active management, it involves a certain degree of risk (because you need to be invested in equities that are volatile in order to get enough gains), and it's much harder to do with low amounts of capital (which unfortunately 500k falls into) because you have less cushion to absorb fluctuations. So even 20k/yr is unrealistic without depleting the principal. In your scenario you're going to have to slowly deplete the principal.
So. Here's what all of that means. It's what I would do, in your shoes.
-
You need the principal divided between an all-market fund (higher growth, but more volatile) and bonds (the inverse). For simplicity, you're looking for the stock tickers VTI and BND. I would do something like a 50/50 split into each. This is not financially optimal, but it's pretty good, and it's much more appropriate for a solo individual with mental health issues and (I'm assuming) not a lot of investment experience.
-
Ideally, the IRA should be in some sort of investment split like this. If not, make it so. You may qualify for the exemption (chronic illness) that will let you stretch distributions over your lifetime. Take it if so. If not, take the distributions and put them into a regular brokerage account, then invest them as described above. You likely won't have enough income to pay any significant taxes anyway so it doesn't matter much.
-
Whether it's happening in the IRA or a brokerage account, about every six months, sell an equal proportion of each stock ticker to get enough money to live on for the next six months. If the market crashes, cut your spending and take smaller portions (a months worth or so) instead, primarily from the bond fund (BND).
-
In the beginning, take enough money to sustain yourself entirely and then start looking for a job you can tolerate. Making even 15,000 a year in salary will allow you to stretch this lump sum significantly farther, potentially even keep it for retirement or start building it back up. As another poster mentioned, if it can grow, it will accumulate.
This sucks, I know. But this final gift from your father can keep you alive, give you a chance to find a job your don't hate or maybe even like. When I say "not enough," I mean that it's not enough to live on forever - but it is enough to change your life for the better. This could be the difference between working a fastfood job out of necessity and taking a part-time gig at a library or something. You might even be able to derive some meaning from that kind of job.
Good luck.
-
-
Comment on How US doctors cashed in on the No Surprises Act in ~health
R3qn65 LinkThis is fascinating, and really goes to show how complex systems produce unexpected results. I haven't really been able to decide whether this result is good or bad - both, probably - but it's...This is fascinating, and really goes to show how complex systems produce unexpected results. I haven't really been able to decide whether this result is good or bad - both, probably - but it's certainly unexpected.
-
Comment on US Department of Justice arrests soldier who made $400,000 betting on Nicolás Maduro's removal in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link@stu2b50 you win! Edit: @papasquat, I think maybe@stu2b50 you win!
Edit: @papasquat, I think maybe
-
Comment on Why America is so much better than Europe at immigration in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentFrom the article, the point/goal is this: Basically, to observe Europe's successes (and especially failures) and use that knowledge to improve US immigration policy. Not to put too fine a point on...From the article, the point/goal is this:
Understanding the differences between U.S. immigration and European immigration is indeed a very good idea if you want to design better, smarter U.S. immigration policy — but that’s going to look like “not making Europe’s mistakes” much more than adopting Europe’s solutions... None of this is to reject that an anti-immigration backlash happened in the U.S. or to argue that current U.S. immigration policy is great, no notes. There are huge improvements achievable, and we should be laser focused on achieving them, but doing that requires a clear-eyed view of what works and what doesn’t.
Basically, to observe Europe's successes (and especially failures) and use that knowledge to improve US immigration policy. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that US immigration policy is more successful doesn't mean there's nothing to learn.
Comparing the UK Pakistani diaspora to the US Pakistani diaspora shows a definitive lack of understanding why they're "underperforming" in the UK. They didn't just show up one day as refugees y'know.
I'm pretty sure Kelsey Piper is aware of British India : )
This was her exact point:
The U.S. immigration system benefits from low geographic distance to culturally more proximate countries and institutional filters that select for employability.
Getting to the United States from the Middle East typically requires a university admission, an employer sponsor, or an established family network. Getting to Europe from the same region more often means an asylum claim or family reunification from earlier guest-worker flows...
She specifically calls it out as a selection effect in the US!
Edited to add words for clarity.
-
Comment on What is Mastodon for? in ~tech
R3qn65 Link ParentWell, you know, I say the same thing about "tildoes" and yet...PS]: They also have to know that nobody in their right mind would willingly use the term "toot" to describe a post.
Well, you know, I say the same thing about "tildoes" and yet...
-
Comment on The US Chief Justice and his wife took $20 million from firms he rules on. I'm filing for his disbarment today. in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentI don't agree and don't think this bears out statistically (almost all voters prioritized the economy), but I get that there are a lot of very loud voices on the Republican side saying these...The unfortunate fact is a lot of people were highly energized by the prospect of hurting immigrants, women, and trans people. That’s who a large part of America is now.
I don't agree and don't think this bears out statistically (almost all voters prioritized the economy), but I get that there are a lot of very loud voices on the Republican side saying these things. It often makes me feel like everyone feels that way. Whenever I find myself thinking that, I try to think of actual, real Republicans I know. We don't often agree on the best policies and we almost never agree on the likely consequences of those policies, but I have yet to meet a real person - not online, not a talking head - who actually wants immigrants, trans people, etc to suffer.
-
Comment on Adults are earning college degrees online in weeks, alarming US educators in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentThanks for the article, I enjoyed it. I'm struggling a little bit to draw the connection. We were talking about companies who have 10,000 applicants for 3 roles. That's not a union job at the...Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it.
I'm struggling a little bit to draw the connection. We were talking about companies who have 10,000 applicants for 3 roles. That's not a union job at the pipefitter or something, it's a senior SWE position at Google that probably pays >500k in total comp. I don't really get how paid overtime, better housing standards, etc. affects that position at all.
-
Comment on Adults are earning college degrees online in weeks, alarming US educators in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentYeah, we agree. That's why they don't do that. I'm not sure where we're talking past one another.Yeah, we agree. That's why they don't do that. I'm not sure where we're talking past one another.
-
Comment on The gravest threat to the American press in ~society
R3qn65 LinkHere's the text of the original Semafor piece.Here's the text of the original Semafor piece.
The New York Times and Washington Post learned of a secret US raid on Venezuela soon before it was scheduled to begin Friday night — but held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops, two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said.
The decisions in the New York and Washington newsrooms to maintain official secrecy is in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions — even at a moment of unprecedented mutual hostility between the American president and a legacy media that continues to dominate national security reporting. And it offers a rare glimpse at a thread of contact and even cooperation over some of the highest-stakes American national security issues.
President Donald Trump and top administration officials Saturday praised the stunning seizure of the Venezuelan president, which Trump approved at 10:46 p.m. Friday, citing both the lack of American casualties and the total secrecy surrounding the attack.
“The coordination, the stealth, the precision, the very long arm of American justice - all on display in the middle of the night,” Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said.
Hegseth did not mention that part of that secrecy was the news outlets’ decision — unlike other countries, the US does not have a mechanism for the government to prevent publication of secrets — to hold off their reporting for several hours after the administration warned that reporting could have exposed American troops performing the operation.
Spokespeople for the White House, the Pentagon, and the Washington Post declined to comment on the conversations between journalists and officials Friday night. A Times spokesperson didn’t immediately offer a response to an inquiry.
Do you need a lanyard or a carabiner? I’ve had pretty good results with the Nite-Ize carabiners.