Comment author: Larks 05 September 2015 09:16:42PM 0 points [-]

I'm looking to buy a sofa without flame retardants. The Center for Enviromental Health suggests that all IKEA products are fine, but at least in 2012 it seems that they instead substituted another chemical flame retardant, TRIS. Does anyone know if IKEA furniture is now chemical flame retardant free, or if there are any other good options for below $1,000 ?

Comment author: James_Miller 04 September 2015 03:32:55PM *  2 points [-]

Does that imply that EMH doesn't apply to financial assets in corrupt economies, specifically to external (foreign) investors who can come and leave as they want?

Yes, although with China you can't necessarily leave when you want as the government might restrict sales.

Can a passive investor afford to ignore it?

No, but by investing in U.S. firms that do business in China you are not ignoring it.

Comment author: Larks 05 September 2015 09:09:12PM 1 point [-]

US firms? Your main China exposure is going to come from your Aussie mining exposure.

Comment author: Larks 22 August 2015 04:40:15PM 1 point [-]

I just installed 6 apps.

  • CPU Thermometer
  • PowerCalc
  • Advanaced Signal Status
  • Compass
  • First Aid (US Red Cross)
  • Heart Rate

Thanks for writing this.

Comment author: Larks 16 August 2015 02:25:57PM 12 points [-]

I thought the biodeterminists guide was one of the most useful things I've ever read. I'd love it if Yvain would write the same for longevity, general fitness, IQ, etc.

Comment author: Larks 08 August 2015 10:08:30AM 2 points [-]
  • Eugenics
  • Foreign Intervention
  • Capital Gains taxation
  • Cryonics
  • Temporal Discounting
Comment author: Larks 18 July 2015 02:12:49AM 4 points [-]

Excelent post! Thanks for sharing.

Comment author: SolveIt 08 July 2015 11:08:28PM 4 points [-]

Me too.

In response to comment by SolveIt on Crazy Ideas Thread
Comment author: Larks 09 July 2015 10:49:32PM 1 point [-]

Me too.

Comment author: Larks 01 July 2015 01:00:36AM 8 points [-]

saving lives and saving souls are nearly equally important.

If souls actually exist (and could go to heaven and hell) then saving souls is far more important than saving lives! Your disagreement with them is surely not about relative importance, it is about ontology.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 June 2015 03:11:40PM 4 points [-]

There is a paper out, the abstract of which says:

...Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of [group X] among their colleagues. Third, [members of group X] fear negative consequences of revealing their ... beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many ... said that they would discriminate against openly [group X] colleagues. The more [group anti-X] respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Before you go look at the link, any guesses as to what the [group X] is? X-/

Comment author: Larks 23 June 2015 11:26:54PM 1 point [-]

fbpvny pbafreingvirf

Comment author: jacob_cannell 17 June 2015 04:04:48AM *  3 points [-]
Comment author: Larks 18 June 2015 01:40:16AM 1 point [-]

Thanks!

View more: Prev | Next