Those P2P loans get also lost quite often. If you have transaction logs that show you making consistent 12% for years that would be quite interesting to many.
Due to the nature of p2p lending sites the sites often have incentive to make it look good for the investor, as for them any activity on the platform brings fees in.
I think it is pretty logical that if some place makes consistent 12% to have that lowered along the years as investors will find the good places quite quickly and start competing for the price.
Loans fail sometimes. But many p2p companies have that calculated in and give you an insurance for failing credits (including interest). This works as long as the p2p companies have put enough aside and work in profit (there are some where this works for years).
Also have to be noted, that the change to make bucketloads of cash from shitcoin peddling is something the traditional corps can't offer. Yeah for sure something like sushiswap requires talent, but it is only couple of years old and is already churning out millions if not billions. With many other business lines the same work/reward rate just isn't there.
There for sure are tons of people willing to manage someones else business if you pay them well. However how talented or good they are is a totally different thing.
Yeah, it is no wonder that a founder-CEO of a 70 billion dollar company is having very little negative interactions with about anyone.
Personally I have became from poor ass bootstrapping startup founder to rich and successful retired entrpreneur (now investor) and it is ridiculous how people will treat you wildly differently as you get wealthier. And at times the exactly same people.
I have seen this type of behavior before even though I am not rich or successful. These people act like they never behaved the way they did or simply pretend it never happened, while they continue to do it to others. Its disgusting how people can be so fake.
If you don't expect repeat interactions with an agent, or expect the agent won't remember / weigh these past interactions strongly, you do what's best for you in the moment.
Which happens to be taking the counterparty's current situation into account – including their wealth/power, AKA how much they can do for you. Entirely pragmatic, if selfish ("disgusting" in your words).
The way to combat this fake behaviour is to increase its cost, forcing the "fake" person to interact differently.
But I wouldn't hold my breath:
1) To "increase the cost" you need something of value in the first place. If you're poor and powerless, you are… powerless. Your only strength is in numbers: social pressure, `∑ little_power * lots_of_people`.
2) This "fake" personality is likely something learned in early childhood. A person would probably need to experience lots of negative feedback to readjust later in life.
3) Have you considered that their strategy ("fakeness", taking into account extrinsic factors like wealth or fame) may be superior to yours ("integrity", interacting based solely on a someone's intrinsic traits)? You know, it is not a physical law that being nice and consistent to people pays off. It's a pretty wild social dynamic, evolved only recently.
Regarding 3), how well someone's social strategies pay off is completely separate from their morality. It's irrelevant.
Just as a thought experiment: if there was little social cost to it, killing your competitors would probably be a very successful strategy. Would you go: "sure, he kills people, but it makes him very successful and we should give him kudos for that"?
Regarding your last statement, that "being nice and consistent" is a recent social norm, I call bullshit and citation needed.
Morality certainly has its merits – after all, it's omnipresent across nearly all human groups (that survived to this day). So it has undoubtedly played a central role in advancing humankind.
But please note morality is an evolved collective strategy as well, a survivor in an extremely competitive landscape. It's not "above" evolution (unless you're into religious metaphysical arguments).
If all its proponents "were killed" – your words; an unlikely proposition in my estimation – then yes, that would be it for morality. Something else would take its / our place, but the world would still go round.
> But please note morality is an evolved collective strategy as well, a survivor in an extremely competitive landscape. It's not "above" evolution (unless you're into religious metaphysical arguments).
I don't fancy a debate right now, but I feel I should point out for observers that this is a minority position in the philosophy of ethics (for atheists and religious philosophers alike). At the very least it is possible (and common) to be a moral realist without making "religious" arguments.
I have not revealed my preference, one way or another (I'm personally not a fan of fakeness, if you must know; which is precisely the reason why I think about such things and take time to reply on HN).
But seeing your visceral response, I'll offer one advice now: don't let your biases blind-side you.
> I have not revealed my preference, one way or another
You have revealed your preference of evaluating morality as a choice.
I think morality is a basic assumption for pretty much all human interaction. If someone chooses to be immoral, then why would I want to interact at all with that person? If being fake and untruthful is a choice for that person, I don't see how any interaction made sense. Just the only sensible choice is to run away from that person and if you have business going on just try to close them as quickly as possible. Even online discussions like these would be totally pointless with a person who has selected to be immoral/fake.
What you do and whether you "run away" or "close business" is up to you. But likewise, what other people do is up to them – how would you impose your choices and preferences onto others?
You're able to do that only to the degree that you hold power over them. That is what "power" is.
Which is precisely what is being discussed here. Not the personal preferences and animosities of human X (Radim, repomies69, whoever), but how social interactions evolve over aeons. It is a pretty complex dynamic system with feedback loops that span individual interactions (the repeated prisonner's dilemma from my OP), generations and even civilizations.
Let me try another way: You can be perfectly happy with your strategy Y and die content you did what you thought was best. In fact, it's probably the best anyone can hope for. Alea iacta est.
But if you're the last person believing Y, that strategy dies with you. It is not a personal attack on you to observe that there are people who do not follow Y, and evaluate relative merits of strategy Y vs Z. You can wish everyone followed Y (was more like you), and still do that.
Interestingly, lashing out at people who observe other strategies than Y even exist is a strategy in itself. Proselytizing, ostracizing and zealotry are a form of social pressure, and humans evolved to be quite susceptible to that.
On a technical note, "if A then B" is an implication, a form of logical reasoning. An implication doesn't mean that A is true, or that the person proposing the implication believes A (or B). For example, you could say "if everyone is dead, money will be worthless". An implication is an observation about relationships, trying to make sense of the world.
Exactly. It was at that moment I understand why most successful and rich people tends to be wary.
I wasn't even rich or successful, I only got promoted to a senior position, and their faces changed the next day. Those a-hole faces still makes me want to puke.
That was a long time ago. But I still have vivid memory of it.
After playing with earlier generation RPi's, my opinion was that they are useless crap, not performant and stable enough for my projects. But now I tried RPi4 8GB model, and I have to say that it is entirely different beast. For my projects they have been very stable and performant so far.
Exactly my experience. My mind boggles at the thought that a Pi 1 was considered sufficient by anyone to be a desktop replacement with its tiny amount of RAM and processing power, even back then.
Unfortunately the modern web is the perfect definition of bloated software, and you cannot really get stuff done without it. At minimum, it's needed for banking, government documents, and e-learning/collaboration platforms.
With the latest RPi 4 with 8GB ram, with an SSD drive, for my use cases I haven't found the performance problems at all. However I can totally see that for many other use cases performance might be a limiting factor.
I also considered going with NUC earlier, but because RPi is very "standard" it is very no-hassle to set up, and internet is full of different tutorials etc.
I just hope that in the future they also launch some premium & beefy version of RPi, so you could use all the same software etc but have more performance.
Just get born rich so you don't have to do anything.
I think it is no-brainer that founders would prefer to have full control and ownership. If you manage to bootstrap a profitable company with zero outside funding, great for you, but that's not the typical case. Most of us need some money to make money.
More like your web is ruined because the site that tries to write about some controversial topic has to stay less controversial else they can't make money by showing ads.
People can blog just fine without having to make money off them you know, and of those making doing it for the money the vast majority have to censor themselves to be able to grow and maintain their audience in the first place.
Somewhat obviously, you don't actually get a lot of people willing to pay for your content if you hold truly unpopular opinions.
This bugs the crap out of me, it sounds like "waaaahhh I can't rake in ad money being a provocateur". So deal with it. Get a day job. Accept that large chunks of society will hate you (that's the goal anyway, right?) and that your business won't be welcome.
I was responding to a comment about making money from ads, but a similar line of thought works for banking services, I think.
Suppose that your use of the water service was creating public lashback against the water utility for "supporting" your business. A loud minority is pestering the water board members and complaining that what you're doing ought to be illegal even if it isn't strictly yet. Some are pressuring other big water users to reexamine their contracts with the utility, and someone even managed to talk a pump supplier into severing their relationship with the utility. A different minority is yelling stuff about "rights" and making trouble at board meetings.
The easiest possible thing to do in this situation is to find some vaguely plausible reason to cut your access to the public utility, and tell you that you have to truck your water in yourself from now on. Note that this kind of stuff actually happens to farmers, refineries, and other businesses.
As far as what's "right"... Damn if I know. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and these decisions end up being made by people who are accountable to and influenced by their family, friends, and community for the choices that they make. Clear laws can dilute that responsibility, but only to a point.
> I was responding to a comment about making money from ads, but a similar line of thought works for banking services, I think.
It depends on what level the ads are being cut. But sure, that can be different.
> As far as what's "right"... Damn if I know.
I stand pretty firmly on "everyone deserves access to utilities".
Maybe with a throttle at a certain level if they're abusing the utility itself.
So charging more to big water users is usually fine, refusing to deal at all is rarely fine.
The point at which someone is acting so badly they need to be removed from utilities, where fines aren't even enough, is the point where they should be going to prison. And then they should have access restored upon release.
And sending money in a simple electronic way should be a utility in the US.
I have been using LN quite a lot for casual payments in the last years. There have been a lot of small hiccups but recently it have been working very fluently for me.
Due to the nature of p2p lending sites the sites often have incentive to make it look good for the investor, as for them any activity on the platform brings fees in.
I think it is pretty logical that if some place makes consistent 12% to have that lowered along the years as investors will find the good places quite quickly and start competing for the price.