= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (369)
My apologies. I didn't check the ancestors. I would note that wedrifid's comment can be repaired with "sufficiently" in front of reliable.
I think the rational "fix" is to make sure you can stay afloat for at least a few months if a catastrophe happens. That is also the standard advice of every financial planning book I've ever read. And a Google search finds plenty of sites like: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/savings/how-much-should-you-save-rainy-day
I'd like to see somebody find a financial advice site or book that says you can periodically wipe out your sayings if you have a reliable source of income and overdraft protection on the empty account (and no other compensating factors, to beat the dead horse).
Sometimes it amazes me the things that people on LW will argue for just for the sake of argument.
I may be motivated to argue the point because I just recently wiped out my savings to purchase a car and an amp - and I don't have any overdraft, or even a credit card.
To be honest that is what I saw you doing, hence the disengagement.
Hmm, I thought I was correcting an obvious error you made, and I expected you to immediately explain what you really meant or add some extra condition or retract your claim, and then we would have been done with the discussion.