In 2009, I remember reading a resignation later by a guy who made his "F* you money" betting for a housing collapse. He blasted the big banks, ivy leaguers, and old boys network.
I bought complex derivatives (SRS, SKF) but lost betting against the market.
Through "calculated risk", I learned of Jim the Realtor http://www.bubbleinfo.com/ who videos (vacant) casualties of the housing collapse. Seeing it made it real for me.
Over time, I've realized that the further from reality that decisions are being made, the more likely we are to make destructive decisions.
When soldiers kill people with drone aircraft in video game-like conditions, it removes the reality from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands.
In our wonderfully complex world, we sow complexity, and reap disaster. Im not sure what the answer is, but there is something terribly wrong when destruction is more profitable than creation.
Killing a sentry is completely different than killing an enemy soldier while
engaged in a firefight. It is a cold and calculated attack on a specific target.
After observing a sentry for hours, watching him eat or look at his wife’s photo,
an attachment is made between the stalker and the sentry. Nonetheless, the
stalker must accomplish his task efficiently and brutally. At such close
quarters, the soldier literally feels the sentry fight for his life. The sights,
sounds, and smells of this act are imprinted in the soldier’s mind; it is an
intensely personal experience. A soldier who has removed a sentry should be
observed for signs of unusual behavior for four to seven days after the act.
Although I agree with your sentiment, it has been reported that drone pilots flying remote missions from the US exhibit similar problems with post-traumatic stress as those flying in-theater:
A very good read. Andrew Lahde bet against the "too big to fail" financial institutions. He was an outsider. And he only closed his operations because he considered those institutions wouldn't be able to pay back [further] bets.
Not to quibble, but I would say that using SRS and SKF doesn't really qualify as using "complex derivatives" to bet against the market.
For most investors there really wasn't an optimal way to do this, using ultra-short ETFs carried a lot of drawbacks. The best way (which I found and put 50% of my PA into) was to go long a Canadian insurer which had a ton of credit default swaps on most of the levered investment banks.
The other thing I would say is that, unless you are somehow exacerbating a problem (e.g.: somehow creating rumors to cause bank runs) then picking up cheap insurance isn't the same as being the guy controlling the predator drone in a strike. You'd instead be simply offsetting someone else's risk.
"When soldiers kill people with drone aircraft in video game-like conditions, it removes the reality from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands."
Scenario 1:
A trolley (i.e. in British English a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Scenario 2:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
In short, more people will flip the switch in scenario 1, but will not push the man off the bridge in the second scenario. From this result, they (researchers) hypothesize that an entirely different part of the brain handles more abstract (i.e. non-physical) decisions; while the more basic, physical decisions may be made elsewhere.
Really cool thought experiment, and a good listen overall. Then again, that's par for the course when it comes to radiolab.
There's a Hollywood blockbuster waiting to be made out of a story like this (as noted in some of the Reddit comments). Something along the lines of Fight Club (grimy house scenes, top-notch monologue) or Lord of War/Up in the Air (someone doing a toxic job but good at it).
If you want a fictional account, rather than a documentary like the excellent Inside Job, I think a black comedy in the style of Dr. Strangelove might be more appropriate.
Both interesting and depressing. No matter who you think should ultimately take the blame for the housing crash, it's easy to forget how many people other than just the homeowners are affected by this crap.
The irony, of course, is that people's economic hardships are creating jobs. Which means there's enough money in foreclosures alone to warrant having an employee to evaluate the extent of foreclosures. It's sickening.
Looking at a beautiful albeit narrow slice of something can hurt you (even though it feels good) because you fail to see the larger picture (which may not be so pretty). It introduces a bias that may lead you to incorrect conclusions and bad decisions. Enjoy the craft, but be wary.
this was very emotional article. very sad indeed. isnt it weird that all front page articles on reddit are overtly emotional? it seems that plain groundbreaking research papers will never make it to the frontpage...
You realize that reddit is one of the most visited sites on the Internet now, right?
It's not the little lisp-hackers, YC-funded, nerd-centric community that it started as, and it will never be that again.
19M uniques tends to alter things.
Bury it all you want, i have sympathy for the evicted, not this sleazy redditor. Posts like these are the reason i removed 'reddit.com' from my reddits.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN is mainly aimed towards insightful stories about "hacking" any system that is not tuned properly and still has room for improvement in order to be more close to our desires.
Entrepreneurship is the main way to hack society and its systems (I put most politicians in the "those that cannot do, teach" department). But the first step in fixing a system is to find out about its issues. From this perspective, this is very much an on-topic story on HN.
You are right, but since the readers of this comment thread are self-selected, you lose the karma battle. Kind of like how on Youtube, every song is the best song in the world.
I find complex systems with a lot of variables interesting and "hack worthy." Economics is one such. The human aspect and outcomes of the "hack" appeal as well.
[+] [-] sudonim|14 years ago|reply
In 2009, I remember reading a resignation later by a guy who made his "F* you money" betting for a housing collapse. He blasted the big banks, ivy leaguers, and old boys network.
I bought complex derivatives (SRS, SKF) but lost betting against the market.
I read http://calculatedriskblog.com for a while and educated myself about the macro factors in the markets.
Through "calculated risk", I learned of Jim the Realtor http://www.bubbleinfo.com/ who videos (vacant) casualties of the housing collapse. Seeing it made it real for me.
Over time, I've realized that the further from reality that decisions are being made, the more likely we are to make destructive decisions.
When soldiers kill people with drone aircraft in video game-like conditions, it removes the reality from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands.
In our wonderfully complex world, we sow complexity, and reap disaster. Im not sure what the answer is, but there is something terribly wrong when destruction is more profitable than creation.
[+] [-] Splines|14 years ago|reply
The military acknowledges how traumatizing this could be.
From section 7.4 in this doc (http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM21_150...):
Killing a sentry is completely different than killing an enemy soldier while engaged in a firefight. It is a cold and calculated attack on a specific target. After observing a sentry for hours, watching him eat or look at his wife’s photo, an attachment is made between the stalker and the sentry. Nonetheless, the stalker must accomplish his task efficiently and brutally. At such close quarters, the soldier literally feels the sentry fight for his life. The sights, sounds, and smells of this act are imprinted in the soldier’s mind; it is an intensely personal experience. A soldier who has removed a sentry should be observed for signs of unusual behavior for four to seven days after the act.
[+] [-] DanI-S|14 years ago|reply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26078087/
[+] [-] alecco|14 years ago|reply
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/17/17194/andrew-lahd...
A very good read. Andrew Lahde bet against the "too big to fail" financial institutions. He was an outsider. And he only closed his operations because he considered those institutions wouldn't be able to pay back [further] bets.
[+] [-] jakarta|14 years ago|reply
For most investors there really wasn't an optimal way to do this, using ultra-short ETFs carried a lot of drawbacks. The best way (which I found and put 50% of my PA into) was to go long a Canadian insurer which had a ton of credit default swaps on most of the levered investment banks.
The other thing I would say is that, unless you are somehow exacerbating a problem (e.g.: somehow creating rumors to cause bank runs) then picking up cheap insurance isn't the same as being the guy controlling the predator drone in a strike. You'd instead be simply offsetting someone else's risk.
[+] [-] anrope|14 years ago|reply
This type of physical disconnect is discussed in a radiolab episode on morality (http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/). They discuss two scenarios: (these versions are a bit different, copypasta'd from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)
Scenario 1: A trolley (i.e. in British English a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Scenario 2: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
In short, more people will flip the switch in scenario 1, but will not push the man off the bridge in the second scenario. From this result, they (researchers) hypothesize that an entirely different part of the brain handles more abstract (i.e. non-physical) decisions; while the more basic, physical decisions may be made elsewhere.
Really cool thought experiment, and a good listen overall. Then again, that's par for the course when it comes to radiolab.
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pseudonym|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirkules|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] molbioguy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonio09|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] count|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mike55|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ristretto|14 years ago|reply
</shameless-plug>
[+] [-] ristretto|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nazgulnarsil|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forinti|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamaicahest|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davedx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vladd|14 years ago|reply
Entrepreneurship is the main way to hack society and its systems (I put most politicians in the "those that cannot do, teach" department). But the first step in fixing a system is to find out about its issues. From this perspective, this is very much an on-topic story on HN.
See also the meaning of "hacker" written by pg: http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html .
[+] [-] hyperbovine|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aron|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goombastic|14 years ago|reply