This is great data, but missing one crucial piece: how much reach did each candidate achieve given their spend? Both what they directly paid for with the ads, and then what the ads achieved organically beyond the spend.
My suspicion is that Trump, by being outrageous, realizes far cheaper effective ad rates (i.e. when you factor in both paid & organic reach) than any other candidate.
Sadly negative comments are the norm here on hacker news. No matter how amazing the news, the top comment is usually a snarky takedown of the linked article.
(It's nice to see the top comment on this one is actually positive!)
I imagine fund investors will get instant exposure to any new crypto asset listed to coinbase or gdax. Which might be worth the price of admission alone if you think Coinbase listing an asset has the potential to drive the price up
Presumably they'll be launching many more coins this year. There are other advantages in holding crypto through a fund rather than directly, like simplified tax accounting and not having to worry about security, either digital or physical.
If anything, I think the rich in Silicon Valley are the most willing to do something about it. Basic Income is a very popular idea amongst left-leaning wealthy people these days
Has investing in the stock market become democratized? Sure you could invest in Amazon at a low market cap back in the 90's, but what about Uber, Stripe, Dropbox, or any recent breakout 'unicorn'?
The privatization that has happened in financing high-growth startups is not great news for Joe Q Public
This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody.
I doubt such a lobbying effort will be necessary. You can still ride around in a horse-drawn carriage on most public roads. It seems far-fetched to think human-powered driving will be made illegal, it's far more likely that most people will just opt-out of it.
I also expect once autonomous vehicles are the majority of cars we'll see stricter enforcement of speeding laws. When everyone is speeding because that's the norm, you don't stand out. When every other car is self-driving at the limit and you're going 20 over in your Corvette, you stand out like a sore thumb. The UK already uses average speed cameras. I think the only reason they aren't widespread elsewhere is simply because many people speed.
Sure, but the procedure for testing vision is far more precise than how we diagnose issues with someone's mind. There's just no way to know 1) to what degree someone's neurology differs from the "norm" 2) if the adderall is truly having the effect of "normalizing" the patient's brain or if it just appears that way to an outside observer.
These are dangerous stimulants that are shockingly similar to readily abused street drugs.
Wow, that's insane that a kid would ever be prescribed medication by a school doctor/nurse. That seems like a doctor's visit a parent should book & not just be informed afterwards that thier child was prescribed a dangerous stimulant like Ritalin.
Yeah but Facebook haven't really fixed the problem. That change was a nudge in the right direction but News Feed is still fundamentally optimized for engagement. Hyper-partisan content is just more engaging than nonpartisan content.
It depends on how one define's 'rich', but if you go by the metric of having $1MM+ in the bank, it strikes me there are plenty of opportunities to get there that aren't pure chance.
The most obvious is to join a high-growth startup, particularly after the initial period of high risk. An example of this would be to join Google in the early 2000's, Facebook from 2007 to 2012, Stripe from 2012 to 2014, Uber from 2012 to 2014, etc etc. Today those companies would probably be the ones on this Breakout List, plus a few others like Coinbase and Robinhood: https://breakoutlist.com/
Join one of those companies as a software engineer and there's a very good chance you'll make decent money. You don't have to be that lucky or clairvoyant to identify these opportunities. This current cultural phenomenon of explaining all success as either the result of luck or immoral behavior is seriously troubling...
edit: would appreciate a discussion here rather than just being down-voted.
I don't think there are only 3 groups of people that oppose it. You can draw some nuance here. For example, many people believe that work helps give people a sense of purpose, and a mere basic income might enable people to make poor life decisions. A "basic minimum job" might still be a re-distributive system, but with some nuance.
That's an easy statement to make, but I don't think it holds true for most wealthy people. Especially wealthy people in Silicon Valley. If anything, most wealthy people I know are extremely aware of how bad things are for the bottom half and regularly vote against their economic self-interest for progressive candidates.
Runaway inequality isn't due to some evil conspiracy by rich people to hoard money from everyone else. It's due to the leveraging nature of technology and the plummeting demand for unskilled labor
My suspicion is that Trump, by being outrageous, realizes far cheaper effective ad rates (i.e. when you factor in both paid & organic reach) than any other candidate.