this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
38 points (97.5% liked)

Casual Conversation

2625 readers
646 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] berryjam 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I've been reading a lot about personal finance. The Millionaire Next Door really opened my eyes.

I also learned about leading and lagging indicators and thought that was cool!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Small advice: take that book with a grain of salt. The author took advantage of a specific market, what he did is not achievable everywhere for everyone

[–] berryjam 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You mean it only applies to the US, or something different?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The big issue is the typical issue of survivorship bias. For obvious reasons they can only study the PAWs who are, you know, successful PAWs. So one of their claims is PAWs are willing to take economic risks if the return is high.

But what about the people who took economic risks and had it collapse under them? They'd be UAWs by their nomenclature ... yet they did a PAW thing.

In reality you learn more about what led people to failure than enumerating the things that supposedly led to people's success.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This, thank you!