the peak of tulip mania was in 1637, people who invested in 1636 and got out in early 1637 would probably have made good money.

I believe the analogy here is that investing in the Tesla IPO would have made a lot of money, yes, but at some point in a future implied to be not so far off, staying in Tesla should lead to losing all that money.

I sort of feel like that will probably prove to be true. Was it a bad idea to invest in the IPO, no, but it wasn't a bad idea to invest in tulips either, until it became a very bad idea.

Every company in existence is likely going to 0 at some point in its life. So then what is a good investment?

you don't have a time machine, trust me on this. Therefore you will not be going back to invest in Tesla in the past, you will only be investing in Tesla from now onward. You may have already invested in Tesla in the past, and if you keep your money in Tesla that you invested in the past that is like deciding to invest in them today.

Every company in existence is likely going to 0 at some point in the future, but some companies seem like to go to 0 in a few years and some companies we can not as yet conceive of what might possibly cause them to go to O.

So the question when you invest is, am I investing in something I expect to crash and burn in a year, or I have no idea even what could cause them to crash and burn because they look so strong.

There seems to be some people in this conversation that believe Tesla is a crash and burn in a year (or two) company. And whenever you get confronted with this belief you talk about how if you invested in them 16 years ago you'd feel pretty good about it now! Which is totally true, but also if you had invested in Tesla 16 years ago and you had cashed in last year you'd have felt better about them than you would now. Also you are only able to invest now, not 16 years ago, because, as noted above, you do not have a time machine.

Do I believe Tesla is going to crash and burn, uhm maybe, I don't care that much but I do think there are signs of it.

One which produces an income. Otherwise it's speculating, not investing.

Depends on what your time horizon is. As an investor, if it doesn't go to zero before I die, what do I care that it might later?

Tesla is up 29,644% since IPO 16 years ago. Where is the argument exactly?

You can't today invest in their IPO 16 years ago.

16 years is a long time to be wrong. That's a tremendous amount of money to have given up for fear of insolvency.

Survivorship bias: many IPOs since then have underperformed. If you cherry-pick all the ones that did, then IPOs look like an outrageously fantastic bet.

You have to bet on the IPO knowing only the information at the time, not knowing what the future growth of the stock was.

You didn't have to bet on the IPO, it didn't go up 29,000% in a day.

Binlog simply pointed out that this firm's research is as good as a coin flip for tech. They have been suggesting shorting Tesla for 13 years. That's a lot of 'in the future' and a very long time to be wrong.

I feel like the market staying irrational/gullible longer than you can stay solvent argument doesn't really make sense when all you're doing is NOT investing in something. It seems an aphorism more suited to puts and calls, puts especially, than it is to deciding not to invest at all.

but losing that check is like a living death!

I would expect Vercel or some other company whose edge computing language is Deno to take it up.

this is like me claiming 80% certainty that water is wet.

Isn't it more likely they have those north koreans who were spamming remote job applications to fund their government?

or Jev claiming a coin flip will be heads 90% of the time with 80% confidence

original title: Optogenetics wins the Nobel – one neuroscience breakthrough in a line of technological innovations helping scientists map and control the brain

if we define anything in a way we want to define it to get the meaning we want then it ends up meaning what we want it to, however corruption in most definitions that I am aware of includes some sort of benefit to those making a political decision for the results of that political decision.

If we accepted your definition then it should follow that if you have political connections then you cannot influence policy without being corrupt, which seems weird because having political connections probably indicates political interest or knowledge of the issues.

Now you may feel that is an unfair description, that one can influence policy to the same extent as those without political connections and thus not be corrupt, but the problem with that is if you have political connections they will probably hear about your attempts and they will be influenced through that connection no matter what you try, not to mention that often your political connections are exactly the people that should be talked to, and in this way we see that people with political connections must be locked out of the process by your definition if we want to fight corruption.

Locking people out of the process seems as problematic as being corrupt, but luckily I follow the model of there has to be some personal benefit involved with the corruption so I don't need to argue for locking anyone out.

I'm not sure what you mean by financial, for example financial resources to affect a decision often includes advertising on the issue. I agree this can make things unfair, because someone with a lot of money can buy more ads than someone without.

In that case one could put funding limits on political ads, but so many issues are not directly political but still you can move the emotions of the public on them via advertising that it does not seem possible to really control. Maybe it should be attempted.

That said, although I believe it will invariably be unfair, unfair and corrupt are not synonymous.

the same price of a large pizza where I used to work as a delivery guy! Those pizzas were way expensive.

and make the people who didn't put any sort of limits on how many records can be downloaded before there has to be a check on what is going on or any of the other stupid security holes that were found, make them criminally responsible as well. At some point you can be sure you'll be imprisoning someone for making a typing mistake (accidentally commented out some code) or a logic mistake (I should have said IS NOT, but instead I said IS) or just being tired.

In Denmark, and I suppose in the rest of the EU, it is extremely difficult to find peanut butter that doesn't need all the stirring.

> In Denmark, and I suppose in the rest of the EU ...

Why would you draw conclusions about the EU based on Denmark, a top outlier by any good metric?

TBF it varies by region (and over time) in the US. Where I'm at even the big box national chains consistently provide several peanut butter options - combinations of (at least) glass vs plastic, added sugar, and alternative oils. (For my part I don't want the sugar but I'm not concerned with a plastic jar or a natural oil to help emulsify.)

Might find peanuts and a grinder to grind your own, which is nice.

The default peanut butter here in Spain is not only full of sugar, but also swirled with caramel :/

You mostly only find the pure peanut stuff in the health food sections of bigger supermarkets.

Well the swirled peanut butter at least tells me that peanut butter is unhealthy.