Ask HN: Any good investments for those saving a substantial portion of income? - <AUTHOR> Dear HN,
I am in my mid-20s and I'm banking over 50% of my pay each month. This adds up to about $50k in savings at the moment. I'm maxed up to match on 401k.
The poor interest rates in checking and savings just aren't cutting it for me.
I don't want to risk too much, but how can I better invest this money?
For me particularly -- my goals are a nice car (60k), retirement, and I'd like to be prepared to purchase a home (130k in my area), although I am not immediately interested in home ownership yet... <comment><USER2> Open a brokerage account and invest in index funds. That requires the least amount of effort and is shown to provide solid gains over time.

You may also want to accelerate your home purchase plans. This is also an excellent way to use spare cash and you will get a nice tax benefit.

60,000 on a car is just like lighting money on fire, but you probably already knew that. Try to get as close to 0% interest as you can and don't pay it off with the spare cash. The money is better off earning 5% in the stock market and paying a 1.9% car loan (if you can get it).

</comment><comment><USER3> All the recommendations for low cost mutual funds are good, but I recently found Motif Investing ([http://motifinvesting.com](http://motifinvesting.com)) - it's a really interesting way of investing in stocks, based on very specific sectors. For example, "cloud computing" or "beer". These types of investments would be difficult to do cheaply with any current mutual find or ETF. It's not something to put _all_ your money into, but it's an alternative and possibly interesting way to invest (I am not affiliated with them in any way).

I would also offer a recommendation _against_ an expensive car. Take it from someone who bought a really nice sports car - the novelty wears off relatively fast, and after that, you're just left paying hefty maintenance fees. Remember a car is to take you from point A to point B.

<comment><USER4> > Take it from someone who bought a really nice sports car - the novelty wears > off relatively fast, and after that, you're just left paying hefty > maintenance fees. Remember a car is to take you from point A to point B.

Sports cars are for motorsports. Take her to the track! I'm not exaggerating when I say track days are the most fun I've had in my life.

<comment><USER5> A nice middle ground might be a motorcycle. I had a 600 sportbike for a few years, and it was funny riding an $8k machine (at the time) that could outperform most sports cars on anything other than a straight-line top speed test.

But you only want a motorcycle if you have good restraint. Sportbikes are so capable, it is easy to maim or kill yourself if you don't know how to hold back. They are just really capable bikes in the low rpms, and then they are high-end racing machines in the high rpms.

I got my motorcycle in my late 20's, after spending a lot of my life riding a bicycle. I don't think it would have been good for me to have a motorcycle in my late teens/ early twenties.

<comment><USER4> I drive cars on the track in excess of 120 MPH, and I would never hop on a motorcycle to drive around the block. The fatality statistics are horrifying. Worse, you have to trust not only yourself but everyone else on the road not to send your unprotected body through a car radiator.

Good luck to you if that's your thing, but the price of failure is just too high for my tastes.

<comment><USER6> How about riding the motorbike on the track? Best of both worlds? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A) Don't take advice from random strangers, especially those living in echo chambers.

B) Read, read, read, read, read.

C) After B, decide on your own - you are likely as smart or smarter than any financial adviser, you need to learn what's out there.

D) Some things that work for me: i) Letting my wife manage my portfolio, for the most part, she is generally more distant in her judgements; ii) stocks paying decent dividends with a history of doing so, in a DRIP; iii) reading the news, looking for things that might cause bumps in depressed stocks (made good money on Yahoo when Mayer took over); iv) doing "iii" with no more than 5-10% of my portfolio.

</comment><comment><USER8> Put a portion in cash. At some point the market will have another downturn. The 1987 stock market crash occurred 7 years after the 1980's recession. The mini-bear market in 1994 happened 7 years after the 1987 stock market crash. The dotcom bust occurred 7 years after the 1994 mini-bear market. The GFC occurred 7 years after the dotcom bust and it is currently the 6th year since the GFC.

[https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...](https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1396270301650&chddm=486013&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXSP:.INX&&ei=2mQ5U8j5I9ChkgWuUQ)

Does it look like a good time to put all your money into a S&P500 index fund?

<comment><USER3> That's the problem, you can never tell when it's a good time to invest or a bad time. You think people thought it was a good time to invest in March 2009, when the Dow was at 6500? Many people pulled all their money out, thinking the drop would continue. Those who bought were happy. There's an equally likely chance the market will go up 10% in the next year as down 10%. And, there's _definitely_ no pattern to the market.

<comment><USER8> I suppose you're more of a theory type than I am.

For the record, I invested every dollar I had but $100 into the market between March and May 2009, though it was not much (several thousand) as I was but a humble student. I also bought TSLA at $28 and SCTY at $12, and I still hold both of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is easy. You want a low cost index fund. Vanguard has a number of good ones. The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is probably the best bet. 0.05% expense ratio for admiral shares, a bit more for investor shares. They're a few others that only cover the S&P 500, or include some bonds, or have more international exposure but at your age and savings level it's not worth agonizing over the differences. Just go with the broadest, lowest cost stock fund you can find.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you are new to investing, I highly recommend watching these videos:

[http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Video:Bogleheads%C2%AE_invest...](http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Video:Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy)

They aren't selling anything, its just a series of simple videos explaining the basics of buying index funds and why you would want to do that.

</comment><comment><USER11> Everything you said makes me think you are heading in the right direction except for the 60k car :-) Spend 30k on a lightly used car if you want "nice".

It sounds like you have three different goals, and they break down neatly into: 1) short term: car 2) medium term: house 3) long term: retirement

First: If you can afford to (and it sounds like you can), max your 401k. Your 401k is a vehicle that allows you to "borrow" money from the government and earn interest on it (by being able to postpone taxes). Personally, I invest 100% of my 401k in an S&P 500 index. I have Fidelity, so my fund is Spartan 500 Investor Class (FUSVX). Use whatever S&P 500 index is available to you, though. If you still have money left, put it into a Roth IRA. Same deal: index fund. That covers your long term goal.

Now, for the house. I'm not sure what to say here. Most of my personal savings is _also_ in the Spartan 500. If you've got a sliding window of 5 years to buy a house, I'd recommend the same. Convert to something more stable (bonds?) when you've made some money... then hold on to it while you're waiting to buy a house. However, consider buying one right now with little money down. Prices are stabilizing and interest rates are still historically low.

Finally, short term. You're young, so you probably won't listen (and honestly, that's okay -- I'm not picking on you): don't buy a 60k car. Spend 30k on a used Audi or BMW if that's your thing. Personally, I would recommend spending 23k on a used Honda. You will be amazed (maybe) at what 23k gets you for a used Honda. Same deal as the house, though. Buy it now, with little money down. Interest rates are really low.

Good luck. Mid 20's and already talking about saving half of your pay check. You'll be fine. Just max that 401k. And please don't get a 60k car :-)

<comment><USER4> Great advice here. Definitely get into an index, or a handful of mutual funds. Your bank savings account is losing you money. I'm 100% into mutual funds and honestly I should just switch over to the index you're using, emacdona (I'm also at Fidelity). Everything I've read suggests indexes do at least as well as funds, and it's truly "set it and forget it".

About the car: I agree that 60k is ridiculous, but don't get the Honda. Get a car you like. Or do get the (used) Honda, and also a car you like. I bought a 2007 Z4 Coupe for less than 24k back in 2011. Taking her up to the track is literally the most fun I've had in my life, and it's emerging into a full hobby as I'm trying to get into ChumpCar this year. Motorsports is a great hobby. I wrote a short article about it a year ago:

[http://www.smokingonabike.com/2013/03/27/programmer- looking-...](http://www.smokingonabike.com/2013/03/27/programmer-looking-for- a-hobby-try-cars/)

Life is about fun. If you have financial security in the bag, enjoy it while you've got it.

<comment><USER11> coldpie, you are absolutely right: if cars are a hobby, get one you will enjoy driving. And like you alluded to, there are plenty of options well under 60k.

However, if all you're looking for is to get from point A to point B with a sunroof, heated seats, and low mileage... you can do all that for under 25k in a Honda that will last you over ten years. If you want a little more zip, spring for the V6 ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _I 'm maxed up to match on 401k._

Max it beyond match.

At current returns and tax rates, investing pre-tax dollars will probably get you more bang for your buck that almost anything else.

<comment><USER13> In Sweden these kinds of schemes just pushes up the tax to the future once you take the money out.

And in Sweden pensioners are the hardest tax - making this a horrible deal.

<comment><USER14> Interesting. Most companies nowadays offer a "Roth" option for 401(k) which takes contributions with _after tax_ dollars so when you are ready to get your money back out at 59.5, all of the growth is tax free. You only have to pay taxes on what your employer matches.

<comment><USER15> For myself (young-ish, high-ish income) I've determined that Roth is a bad deal.

Conceptually, Traditional and Roth are about equal. Paying taxes now vs paying them in retirement is a wash, all else being equal. But with a Traditional 401(k), the tax savings are at my highest marginal tax rate. In retirement, I would not expect to be in the same tax bracket.

<comment><USER16> A Roth is a better deal than post tax investing. It's not either or depending on income.

The advantage of a Roth is that you control it and it isn't in expensive employer controlled funds. I say max out your Roth and then max out your 401k. If your spouse works, max out their Roth IRA as well.

Definitely take advantage of any tax incentives being offered over post tax investing.

edit I misread. I would take the employer offered 401k with the 17.5k contribution limit. Get the money out there earning for you.

You can do your own Roth IRA. That is what I am talking about doing separate from your employer. I would max that out first assuming the funds are better.

I prefer today dollars (401k) over future dollars (Roth) so the 401k is more attractive to me modulo terrible fund selection. edit

<comment><USER15> Oh, I should have clarified. I was thinking of Roth 401(k) vs Traditional 401(k).

I do have a Roth IRA because there are income limits for the tax deduction from a Traditional IRA. And as you say, any tax-advantage is worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://wallstreetplayboys.com/sp-500-surpasses-1700-the- worl...](http://wallstreetplayboys.com/sp-500-surpasses-1700-the-world-is-not- ending/)

TL;DR: invest in a low-fee, broad stock-market index (e.g. S&P) every month; over a long time horizon, it should perform well, even if the market doesn't go up (example in article: June 2007 until March 2013 - 5% annualized return).

</comment><comment><USER18> There are some things you can do, while you're searching - full disclosure of course, I do all these things.

First off, get a high interest savings account (or several) from your bank(s). In Canada, ING Direct does decent things (though there are better). At the very least, while you're figuring out what to do with your money, have it make more interest for you.

Secondly, look at preferred shares. They're less volatile than shares in their parent company, and they pay higher dividends. The obvious drawback being the rate of return over the long term is significantly lower than the indices themselves. Banks, at least in Canada are a great example of this, though the same is true of insurance, and power companies.

All investments bring risk, there's no such thing as a guaranteed return. And of course, investments in preferred shares are a risk, like any other stock. That being the case, they're a risk I can accept.

<comment><USER19> >First off, get a high interest savings account (or several) from your bank(s)

Online savings accounts give a higher interest rate than any B&M bank out there, not that the interest rates are actually high. Compare here: [http://www.nerdwallet.com/rates](http://www.nerdwallet.com/rates)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Rule #1 - an emergency fund of 6-12 months living expenses, in checking or money market. (Putting more than this in cash is a bad idea, because the interest you earn doesn't keep pace with inflation.)

Long-term savings should be in stocks (or gold or silver).

Lazy allocation #1: 100% in S&P 500 index fund.

Lazy allocation #2: 50% in S&P 500 index fund, 50% in gold/silver ETFs (like GLD, SLV, PHYS, PSLV).

Advanced #1: Pick individual stocks in addition to index funds.

Advanced #2: In addition to gold and silver ETFs, also take physical delivery. (a hedge against the possibility the the PM ETFs will default, see MF Global)

Note: The stock market is a risk, but over a 5+ year time period it should do better than 0% in a checking account.

</comment><comment><USER21> Do some reading: Intelligent Asset Allocator by William Bernstein[1]

The book is actually a quick read even if you're not a math whiz (which I'll assume you are). It goes through a review of how to allocate your money across a number of investments and explain _why_ it makes sense not only from a theoretical perspective but also based on historical returns in the stock market.

You can also pick up other books by William Bernstein that cover the same thing in different degrees of detail.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Asset-Allocator- Portfo...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Asset-Allocator- Portfolio/dp/0071362363)

</comment><comment><USER22> The Couch Potato Investment Strategy[0] is a great place to start. It focuses on total-market strategies that are extremely low in cost and dead simple to set up. You will most likely beat any actively managed mutual fund[1].

[0] [http://www.moneysense.ca/invest/couch-potato-portfolio- frequ...](http://www.moneysense.ca/invest/couch-potato-portfolio-frequently- asked-questions)

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-indices-versus-active- fund...](http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-indices-versus-active-funds- spiva-2014-3)

</comment><comment><USER23> If you go to a financial advisor... he's going to talk asset allocation and diversity.

I was in the same situation as you. I got some good advice and purchased real estate. I bought a home for myself and and a rental, got another rental 2 years later and 4 more over the next 10 years. 20 years later and I have $2M in equity in property that has never been underwater and a nice annual income stream(60K+) that I don't do much for.

Real estate has its ups and downs but its not as volatile as the stock market and is an asset that can not only generate capital gains but also income.

.02

</comment><comment><USER24> Something like this maybe? Peer-to-peer lending (with risk-pooling) that cuts out the spread taken by banks

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zopa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zopa)

<comment><USER3> I tried Prosper a few years ago, put in a few thousand dollars, spread it over 50 loans, and saw about a 4.5% return when factoring in IRR. I think I've read the returns from others are about the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I will not be able to advice you about the choice of investment owing to my nationality, I highly recommend reading following books. Cover-to-cover if you can.

1\. The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. 2\. Irrational Exuberance by Robert J. Shiller. 3\. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

OK, here's advice anyway :). Please, please do diversify your investments across different classes of products ; Equity, Debt, assets such as Gold or land and so on.

The proportion may vary according to your risk appetite, but do diversify.

</comment><comment><USER26> 1\. Invest in Yourself.

2\. Value experiences over things.

3\. Avoid borrowing money as much as possible. Avoid debt.

4\. Keep an emergency fund.

5\. Invest in low cost Index mutual funds/ETF.

6\. Read following books: 6a. Your Money or Your Life: 9 Steps to Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence. 6b. The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy 6c. A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-Tested Strategy for Successful Investing

</comment><comment><USER27> AA+ rated municipal bonds can have great rates of return, low risk and usually the capital gains are tax-exempt. You can purchase bonds through online brokers (I use TD Ameritrade). There of course are other bonds; corporate, treasury and CD's you can set up in bond ladders to generate income and reinvest after maturity into another bond but those are generally subject to standard tax rates.

<comment><USER3> I would caution against bonds, especially US Mutual bonds, right now. It's a common belief (which of course, could be wrong), that interest rates have to rise in the next few years, which would greatly decrease the price of these bonds, resulting in losses. Also, many munis (and therefore their bonds) have outstanding debts through pensions or overspending that makes repayment dicey at best. Even the AA+ rated ones - don't forget, S&P rated all the mortgage bonds at AA+ as well, and look how those turned out.

<comment><USER21> You are correct that bond values will fall if interest rates rise, but bond prices are inversely correlated with stock prices, so they are a great way to diversify risk and maximize return.

<comment><USER3> Not true at all! Over the past 85 years, the correlation between stocks and bonds has ranged from -93% to +85%, with an average of 10% and a standard deviation of 40%! That indicates they are only very slightly correlated, and not enough to create a general rule.

[http://media.pimco.com/Documents/PIMCO_Quantitative_Research...](http://media.pimco.com/Documents/PIMCO_Quantitative_Research_Stock_Bond_Correlation_Oct2013.pdf)

<comment><USER21> Thanks for sharing that.

However, that paper only looked at the correlation between the S&P500 and _long-term treasuries_. A well diversified portfolio should have a mix of bonds including commercial bonds.

The disclaimer in the paper points this out: _Bonds are represented by long treasuries (Ibbston) which should not be interpreted as a full sample representative of the bond market. Different asset class proxies will have different results._

The data that I've seen on stock-bond correlation shows a pretty consistent negative correlation over the 1927-2010 time period. It's not perfect, I admit, but it serves you well when you're trying to minimize risk.

<comment><USER3> I've also heard the saying "in a panic, all correlations move to 1". Basically, when the market goes down like in 2008, everything goes down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Look into an Health Savings Account (HSA). Unlike a Flexible Savings Account, what you deposit can stay in there past a year and lets compound interest work for you. When you reach retirement age, you'll have a nice fund to pay for medical expenses that medicare won't pay for.

Caveat: Only suitable if you don't have any ongoing expensive medical costs (diabetes, children, etc).

</comment><comment><USER29> Has anyone tried [http://wealthfront.com](http://wealthfront.com) or heard anything about it?

<comment><USER30> I read this article and the comments, and was appalled that the Executive Chairman of a wealth management company doesn't seem to know the difference between marginal and effective tax rate:

[https://blog.wealthfront.com/college-vs-retirement- savings-s...](https://blog.wealthfront.com/college-vs-retirement-savings- silicon-valley/)

I'd stay away.

<comment><USER21> Wow! I had seen that article a while back, but never read then comments. The marginal vs. effective tax rate thing is something he should know.

Also, he seems to like to extrapolate trends that include the cost of tuition being $500K in 20 years. Sure if you straight line the recent growth, but is that really likely?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Medium to high risk vanguard funds have done very well for me and since they are index based it is much lower risk than just day trading. [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make- money-...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/18/how-to-make-money-in-the- stock-market/)

<comment><USER13> Do you pay a fee for them?

<comment><USER32> Vanguard fees are about as low as they get in the business. They are not one of those companies that sell an easy, computer managed fund, and then charge you 4 times the market rate in fees for it.

The sleaziest I have seen was 401k providers that actually offer funds that have very low fees, and then it's the provider itself that tacks on their own management fees that are many times the size of those of the index fund. Yikes.

<comment><USER19> There is an interview with the founder of Vanguard in this video:

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement- gamble/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/)

The video is all about investing in your 401(k). Highly recommend watching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Read Graham's Intelligent Investor, there are also books which provide examples or slight alternatives to Graham's approach. Also sites similar to Mr. Money Mustache may provide guidance that is helpful to you (or not).

Regarding the home purchase, consider loaning yourself the money from the 401k rather than paying someone else interest.

</comment><comment><USER34> I would suggest checking out index funds from Vanguard (or Fidelity or Schwab).

Also, you may want to post this to: [http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/](http://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/)

They're a very reasonable and helpful community.

</comment><comment><USER35> Permanent Portfolio forum:

[http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/permanent-portfolio- dis...](http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/permanent-portfolio-discussion/)

</comment><comment><USER36> > although I am not immediately interested in home ownership yet...

You should be, as this is one of the best investments you can make. At least in my part of the world :-)

<comment><USER37> Which part of the world are you in? If I had to design a truly terrible investment, I'd end up with something that looked an awful lot like housing.

<comment><USER3> In the US I wouldn't call a home a terrible investment. It's not a great one either. The pluses are - tax privileges and the old mantra "you have to live somewhere", but the minuses are property taxes, lack of liquidity, and transaction costs. The problem when evaluating a house as an investment is that there are hundreds of markets, so no rule is good. Washington DC or San Francisco is a far different market than Austin or Dayton, OH.

<comment><USER37> I would. It's illiquid, not fungible, prone to bubbles, deteriorates all by itself, costs money just to own, laughable transaction costs, massively impractical to sell or buy in convenient units, generates no income (unless you rent it out, but most people don't - they live in it); just an awful investment. I literally struggle to think of another mainstream investment that is this bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Take this question to the bogleheads forum.

</comment><comment><USER39> Look into selling covered calls or vertical spreads for part of your portfolio as recurring monthly revenue.

<comment><USER40> I'd be interested in learning more. Can you explain it, or point us to some reading material?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> First things first: we don't have enough information to make suggestions as investing is a lot more about risk management than returns. There have been a few suggestions that could be great in other circumstances, but without knowing the OPs risk thresholds are most likely ill-advised.

1\. the OP states that "I don't want to risk too much"

2\. risk is a very subjective/relative concept - the only thing the OP has stated that risk can be related to is "checking and savings just aren't cutting it"

3\. based on that alone the safest assumption is that the OP's risk capacity is relative to dismal returns from savings and checking returns - that barely keeps up with inflation

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>---

To OP:

1\. Nothing wrong with a lower risk capacity - maybe you need to work your way to managing higher risk

2\. For short term goals (< 3yrs)- choose very safe investments as you cannot afford fluctuations

3\. For long term goals and retirement - taxation is just as or more important than returns - interest income, capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed differently. With that in mind, looks like most if not all your current savings and investments are 100% taxable.

4\. There are a number of ways to deal with taxation, best to find a good investment adviser who has a good understanding of risk management, taxation etc.

5\. If you want to self manage - and don't know your tolerance - look into doing a funnel - i.e. keep 10% in highly liquid investments (Cash, Money Market etc), 20% in government/high quality corporate bonds(short-medium term), 70% in investments with additional risk (ex: 30% in managed high yield bonds, 40% in equity index funds -- if you're risk tolerance changes you could increase your equity). [change ratios to match your needs, risk etc. note: try and maintain at least 3 levels]

6\. Research re-balancing strategies.

7\. Read some books:

a. The richest man in Babylon(fiction) - read first, no particular order after this

b. The Ivy Portfolio

c. The intelligent asset allocator

d. The permanent portfolio

e. The Investor's Manifesto: Preparing for Prosperity, Armageddon, and Everything in Between

f. Value Averaging

</comment><comment> wes-exp [https://www.futureadvisor.com](https://www.futureadvisor.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> Cheap/Free Index Funds

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm a little surprised no one suggested Bitcoin.

<comment><USER43> He asked for (relatively) low risk alternatives though.

<comment><USER42> Invest little money then. That could still become a significant retirement fund for him after a few years.

That said, I think Bitcoin is low risk if you secure your coins properly. I don't think there is much risk of the price going down to zero.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Firstly, I'd recommend this book: [http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads'_Guide_To_Investin...](http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads'_Guide_To_Investing)

It's easy to grasp and straightforward. Some basic ideas from the book:

1) What is your timeline? You seem to have multiple goals/timelines (car, retirement, home) and you need to define each clearly so that you can save for them in the proper manner. Needing money in 5-10 years for a house going to present a different goal than needing it in 30+ years for retirement. Generally, the shorter the time-frame, the less-risky the investment. If you need it in <=5 years, I would stay away from equity, but that is me. Once you know your goals and timeline you can figure out what kind of expected return you want to target.

2) Risk tolerance: You touched on this, but again, you need to clearly define what you mean by "I don't want to risk too much". How affected would you be if your investments were down 30% in one year? Would you hold or panic and sell to avoid further losses? Answering this question is a lot easier to do when you haven't lived through a huge market drop. (People tend to overestimate their tolerance for risk)

3) What is your financial situation? I assume no debt if you're saving 50% of your pay each month, but if you do have any debt, you're probably better paying that off before choosing to invest. Talking a financial planner (who isn't trying to sell you product/services from his/her institution) is a good way to figure out a plan in this respect. I would also ensure you have a decent emergency fund - depending on your situation, 6 months is usually enough.

4) Other assets: If you have a decent 401k match (as you indicated) this gives you a little more flexibility since you already are saving decently for retirement.

5) Taxes: This matters a lot and tax rates for different investments can vary quite a bit. I'm not familiar with US tax code so again, this is something you should talk to a financial planner or accountant to understand.

Having said all of that, I'm personally pursuing a passive, asset-allocation plan. I'm mostly invested in Vanguard Index ETFs with a percentage allocation of bonds, US equity, Canadian Equity (I live in Canada) and International Equity that I feel is comfortable for me. I chose this mainly because of the low-cost/low-MER (Vanguard ETFs have even lower MER in the US) and went passive because I don't like to have constantly make adjustments to my portfolio.

Most of my assets are invested for long-term capital growth, but I have separate accounts for an emergency fund and saving for a real estate purchase where preservation of principal is my concern. (high interest savings account)

<comment><USER21> The Boglehead wiki has some great references on these topics: [http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page](http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page)</comment></comment>


I quit my job seven months ago, this is what's happened - <AUTHOR> http://danhough.com/blog/six-months-later/

<comment><USER2> The thing that really struck me when I left full-time employment for consulting was sick days and holidays. One of the very first things you learn in independent consulting is the value of a billable day. At a salaried job, if you don't show up to work some day, all that happens is some abstract counter of "personal days" ticks down by one. But as a freelancer, you don't show up, you don't get paid.

It sounds obvious, but if you haven't experienced it yet, try it some time. It feels like a high-wire act.

<comment><USER3> Yup, and for me, it created a lot of unhealthy pressure to Always Be Billing™. Maybe for some people that sort of internal nudge is fine, but it made me push myself even when I was sick or majorly burned out lest I not make enough to cover my bills next month (assuming the client pays on time, which they may or may not).

Eventually I couldn't handle the self-imposed stress (and, at the time, uncertainty about health insurance), so I happily returned to employment. :)

<comment><USER4> Yeah - you really have to stop, note, communicate, bill and collect on every request that a client has.

Or else, you will feel tired, broke and like someone has their hand in your pocket all the time.

<comment><USER5> And if you just generally have bad health/chronic health issues, you need to consider that contracting may be 'wrong' for you, or that you need to really aggressively overcompensate. The standard guidance on how to function as an independent contractor really doesn't suffice here - the other people I know with ongoing health problems have had a hard time, and my expenses always manage to dwarf my income even though I follow the basic steps. (I keep raising my rates though, so I'll probably eventually reach the right balance...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's important to note that hardware (and other business related expenses) should come out of your pre-tax income. Make sure to expense those things!

I also (personally) find it humorous that several of his downsides are extreme upsides for me. No conferences, no after hours schmoozing with my employer, no need for software that has expensive licenses :) and most importantly NO "team-building-moral-improving-bonding activities"!!

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha! Yeah that is quite funny. I know what you mean to an extent, at times those things get old but generally I'd say I'm a fan, still. Each to their own I suppose!

And as for the tax thing, I was going to put that in my post but on the advice a proofreader, I took it out to avoid a moral argument. Thanks for the tip though, I absolutely will (and have) been expensing relevant business purchases :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "A lot of advice says to only accept jobs which are willing to pay the rate you're offering..."

IMHO the rule is good, but you don't have to offer the same rate for each job. If there's a job that benefits you, work out what how much that benefits you and quote the appropriate rate. If there's a job that doesn't benefit you, double your normal rate.

Clients insisting on negotiating the rate is a negative signal. It may be a signal that they don't value your work at the rate you're quoting, and this is often a signal that _they won 't value your work_. It may be a signal that they are under financial pressure (i.e. it's high risk for you). Better clients might ask for a discount but normally will agree if you stick to the quoted rate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, well made. That's partly what I was going for with what I said (money/learning benefits etc), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't being a little bit forgiving with my negotiation. Especially with my latest contract, I was particularly unwilling to stick to too powerful guns because I'd just moved back to the UK and didn't have a flat yet. Things still seemed (and in fact, still do - I haven't moved into the new place yet) in flux. It's hard to make hard-nosed business decisions when things are a little bit all over the place. Nevertheless, the new contract has worked out quite well even though I was haggled down a little.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great post, Dan. You might not have hit your original goal on the head, but nothing you did sounds like failing.

Small steps on a long road!

<comment><AUTHOR> :D thanks buddy, that's very encouraging!

<comment><USER9> Nice setup as well. This being HN I expected a "This is how I made a fortune" when I looked at the link/title. The story starts with the admission of failure though and now I expected the (just as common) "Hire me please" post.

You made a different point and I enjoyed reading the article. Congratulations, it seems you found a nice middle ground.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad that the honesty is appreciated, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I quit my full-time job a month ago in order to pursue my Master's degree, which begins next month. To keep myself busy in the meantime I advertised myself for several short-term freelancing gigs.

To my pleasant surprise, I actually managed to earn the same amount as I was before, while putting in about half the hours. Really opened my eyes to how underpaid I was before.

</comment><comment><USER11> "I failed".

Ouch. I'm a couple of months into doing something similar and I was contracting before it. I'm fairly resigned to returning to contracting at the end of my six months.

Churning out a product company from scratch without an obviously good and commercially viable idea is _hard_. A large part of me is resigned to returning to contracting and at best trying to keep what I've worked on ticking over at the same time.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's no need for the return to contracting to be "the end" though, merely a setback. Unless you actually want it to be, and to just drop it and start something else another time. There's no shame in quitting and starting again another time!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice article - thank you for sharing!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome, thanks for reading!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Grad-school or Startup? - <AUTHOR> Non American confused about either applying to a mediocre grad school for CS (would help with work auth) – my undergrad was a disaster and almost put me off programming until I started working on projects of my own, CS106A by Mehran Sahami & my discovery of Ruby
I would've loved to be at Stanford or any top CS school as I feel sound CS skills actually do translate positively to the industry when working on a high-level system but thanks to my low undergrad GPA I don't even qualify for most of them. Alternatively MOOCs could help in understanding various concepts if I go through with the startup route
OTOH I've been mulling over establishing my own startup. I've freelanced a bit, worked for a company and found that I loved product ownership and simply couldn't stop charting out various courses, features, marketing strategies, etc for the product, and refining them through various iterations, etc esp. Edtech w/ regards to Software Industry[1]
Also I'd have to establish the startup in India which brings various challenges which lower my probability to build a world-class product[2]
Ideally I'd finish my graduate course & work at a decent-sized company/startup, pick up valuable insights and later work on my startup
[1]College education (esp in India) is broken – it doesn't offer a lot more than just a bunch of textbooks to learn from. It's still exam-based, not many co-op programs, no insistence to develop other related skills, an outdated & irrelevant syllabus to the industry, unmotivated & egotistic professors (one of whom failed me for questioning the spiel around OOP), etc
[2]Specific to me, not that Indian startups don't build WC products eg HackerRank. Pedigrees in the industry are based on the founding team which expect an IIT/M founder – this directly affects hiring, Investor interest, Press, etc and the product itself takes a backseat
PS I love conversing with fellow startup folks, hit me up if you think you've got something to share <comment><USER2> If your undergrad was a disaster, you are not going to get into any grad school worth your time. And it's going to hurt you in trying to get a startup off the ground too, since investors are looking for an accomplished team.

Sounds to me like you need to build some credibility. You need something you can point to that you have done well.

To be honest, I think your best bet is to take an ordinary job, and do good work. Try to find an employer that people know and respect. About five years of this, including a promotion or two, is going to go a long way to making you a credible practitioner, ready for whatever you have in mind after.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess so. Problem is we have a deluge if service companies and very few product companies that actually do good work (originality, technically, etc).

I guess I do need to improve my credibility, but I have shipped apps with several thousands of paying customers and supported it 24x7.

I guess I'll probably get a decent job or just go ahead and bootstrap my idea. The allure of SV seemed too strong until I realized that ship has sailed. Everybody who isn't at a top startup are bailing due to CoL issues.

Thanks for your input btw.</comment></comment>


Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication <comment><USER3> The irony of a clickbait publication like Vox talking about intellectual humility is breathtaking. Vox and its ilk (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, Gawker, etc) have done more than anyone else in pushing people to stick to their guns, even when they know their position is wrong. Their attitude towards apologies is never forgiveness, but to attack even harder, saying, "See, even my opponent admits that he or she was wrong!"

Humility doesn't go viral. Careful consideration doesn't get retweets. What spreads is _confidence_ , whether it's well-placed or not. As a result, Vox's product is the very sort of confidence that this article decries.

<comment><USER4> I expected something like this to be the top comment. Vox seems to have become something that many people love to hate and in that case I imagine it feels good to take them down a peg. (Please note that this does not preclude the possibility that you are right.)

<comment><USER5> Why do you assume ulterior motives? Perhaps people are just sincerely discussing the irony that a notoriously disingenuous publication lecturing readers about intellectual humility. No need to assume that they're "delighting in tearing them down" (although such delight would be entirely understandable).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One technique I picked up, was imagine what evidence would change my mind. This exercise usually tells me one of two things. Either one it tells me exactly what evidence I should be searching for to tamper my opinion, or even more importantly it illuminates that it would take an unreasonable amount of evidence to convince me of the opposing viewpoint which alerts me that I'm probably pretty biased on that topic.

<comment><USER7> The US Gov has a very nice little book on the topic - A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis. Just google and you'll find it on the CIA's website.

The book is geared towards the intelligence community but can be appreciated by all intelligent communities, especially on a topic such as this *. In a nutshell, it is about discovering implicit assumptions, questioning them, and checking for alternative explanations - in all areas of analysis/thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "Our ignorance is invisible to us"

Just like those tricky drawings, that even after they tell you that both lines are the same length, your mind keep saying "nope that one is longer". Something very similar happens when we try see our ignorance. It takes a lot of effort, especially when no one have ever bothered to teach us.

<comment><USER9> But if you ARE taught it, suddenly it becomes possible. If you are brought up in a philosophical tradition which essentially says: "Knowledge is forming a theory, and then trying to disprove it", then suddenly ignorance becomes visible.

In the two line example: sure, you mind tells you they're different, but if you're taught that knowledge is about trying to falsify your own opinion, you think about how it might be disproved. You go grab a ruler, bring it back to measure the two lines, and hot damn!

Growing up, I had a very similar moment trying to understand the Monty Hall problem. I was SO frustrated when my intuition said that I was right, I actually grabbed my father (sorry dad) and made him sit down with me while we physically ran through a hundred or so actual physical simulations and recorded the results to see whether practice would match up against theory or my intuition.

It matched up with theory. I learnt a very valuable lesson about intuition and probability.

Of course you're absolutely right however, almost no education system is actually set up to teach or grade using that style...and most kudos is given in academia for making positive claims rather than setting up realistic hypothesese and then working to actively disprove your own or other people's theories.

<comment><USER10> Getting a handle on the unknown is what makes new knowledge come into focus. By definition, they are working at the boundary. This is why we have formalisms that ensure we aren't fooling ourselves.

The struggle is constant, that is why we need to blindly follow those formalisms.

That step of running the simulation was crucial in not cementing gut feelings over proof. Not many people make that leap to running a simulation, even though causality and our ability to imagine a far future is a prime human skill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this story by Bred Weinstein where he asks is a whale a fish or a mammal. If you say fish because it swims in the water you are ignorant of the fact they are mammals who evolved back to live in the water. When you say mammal for this reason you are ignorant of how to read the phylogenic tree of life where subclasses are always part of the superclass. Most fish are Osteichthyes, a group that also includes all mammals. But sharks are not part of this group making us humans closer related to salmon then salmon are to sharks. Its a bad question but if forced to answer you can only be wrong in your own educated way.

<comment><USER12> Interesting information about sharks!

But it's wrongfully pedantic to pretend that monophyletic groups are the only valid classification system. Paraphyletic groups are fine too. Vertebrata or Craniata, minus Tetrapoda, is more or less the definition of "fish".

<comment><USER5> Seems like that supports the point. :)

<comment><USER12> Not really, as far as I can tell. The argument was not just that you're picking between choices, but that both choices are fundamentally wrong in a technical way. But taxonomic categories _don 't_ technically force you to be wrong. That part of the argument is just broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Unfortunately, I haven't really found that humility is rewarded much, which is why I think there's so little of it.

<comment><USER14> Exactly. There's also a cultural process of natural selection at work, and if humility is selected against, we shouldn't be surprised to see less of it.

We live by headlines, sound bites, quick and easy black & white characterisation. Nuance is not appreciated, and often not understood. Nuance and humility are seen as signs of weakness, and often taken as signs that you're wrong, since you clearly don't really believe what you say. A lie spoken with confidence is more believable than a truth explained with nuance, and that's a real problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It is ironical that I find the tone of these people so prepotent when talking about OTHERS being wrong.

For example, they give us an audio and they tell us a robotic voice is telling "Laurel", but they then tell us that what we hear depends on the speakers.

So the fact is that we are not hearing the same thing. So it is not a valid test.

Indeed, the test is wrong because it is computer synthesizers the ones who have problems pronouncing certain sounds, like the "l" that we create putting our tongue back and creating a loop that lets air go out by the sides.

This is a complex analog movement and resonance that is hard to emulate with digital technology, because it is not static and dynamic sounds are very hard to control as we use Fourier analysis for that with windows that introduce distortions in the signal.

Most companies out there just record those sounds from real people.

So those guys instead of accepting the limitations of current technology and accepting their test is wrong, they use it to prove that others are wrong while hearing it.

Oh, the irony. The interesting thing is that while it is very hard to admit that you are wrong, it is extremely easy to admit that other people are wrong.

<comment> Digit-Al I feel like you're misinterpreting the demonstration. It is not a test and there is no wrong or right answer. The whole point is to demonstrate that given different conditions, different people can interpret the same thing as being completely different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The problem is that people ground their egos in their arguments/findings/research etc. If you can resist the prideful urge to do so, your work, and life in general, become much more enjoyable experiences - in my opinion.

<comment><USER17> A genuine problem is that intellectual hubris is often rewarded. There are many "experts" in their field for a reason - not necessarily because they always know so much - but because we have a human bias to defer to authority figures. This bias is not going away.

If you want to be able to market yourself and access opportunities that other people can't, you often have to project confidence - even overconfidence - <USER2> your beliefs. Non-experts can't tell, but they can certainly identify a lack of confidence. People have a bias for simple, clear prognostications, even if they are wrong.

This is an unfortunate reality, but it is a reality. Otherwise, we wouldn't see so many charlatans passing off as experts. But we do.

I think it's useful then to be able to project confidence and even overconfidence in your beliefs. But at the core, you must remain intellectually humble if you want to learn. You can't block out knew ideas because of your ego.

I've summarized this philosophy elsewhere as: look high-status, but be low- status.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> By the other hand, one can think that the level of Knowledge of the authorities and the state-of-the-art in certain fields may be overestimated, because of the confidence of the authorities and the excess of humility of the person who is looking at that field of knowledge. That said, It is impossible to overestimate your own ability of making gross blunding mistakes.

<comment><USER19> That reminds me of: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> One of my teachers said "When convinced you are correct in an argument, you should to defend your position without being swayed by your opponents credentials. Articulate your thoughts, argue with all your strength - and keep in mind that there is a very real possibility that you just might, perhaps, be right."

</comment><comment><USER21> The author displays the very cognitive blind spots he decries. He says

"One reason I've been thinking about the virtue of humility recently is because our president, Donald Trump, is one of the least humble people on the planet.

It was Trump who said on the night of his nomination, "I alone can fix it," with the "it" being our entire political system. It was Trump who once said, "I have one of the great memories of all time."

Trump is of course not a humble man. Is he any different in this regard than his predecessor?

"I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm gonna think I'm a better political director than my political director." -- Barack Obama ([https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html](https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html))

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth." \-- Barack Obama, Primary Election victory speech, Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008.

Intellectual humility starts at home.

<comment><USER22> Recently Obama gave an interview where he pretty much stated something along these lines. You go into politics locally, and you meet idiots, so you shrug it off, go into state politics, and meet idiots. You then hit national, and world politics, and you meet the same idiots.

While I like and respect Obama, it did make me think about the saying, if everyone is a dick, you're probably the dick.

More on topic. I know a pastor and she recently told me that its sad and disheartening at how many people will come up to her after a sermon and say, "Oh that was great, I just wish X was here to hear it." It seems when people hear about a possible flaw in behavior/personality they always search for people that have that flaw. But they rarely ever look at themselves. So it's not too surprising that the author would displays a blind spot while decrying them.

We can only hope he's realized it and is working on it.

<comment><USER23> > It seems when people hear about a possible flaw in behavior/personality they > always search for people that have that flaw. But they rarely ever look at > themselves.

Since you're on the topic of religion the Christian New Testament is pretty big on humility, for example the famous quote from Matthew 7:4: "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?"

As your example shows not everyone who goes to church lives up to the message. But people have been thinking about the problem for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Unfortunately the people most likely to exercise epistemic humility are those that are already rational thinkers, whereas the people that __could benefit most__ suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and are unlikely to change their modes of thinking.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you live in a society where humility is not rewarded (quite the opposite) then you will obviously get less of it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Very interesting article. Definitely learning starts with accepting mistakes, avoiding arrogance and being humble.

</comment><comment><USER27> There's an old saying in physics: "Knowledge advances one funeral at a time."

</comment><comment><USER28> Are there any good books about this topic? I have close-minded people in my family, and I'm looking for books that may have been translated to my native language, so the more popular the book is, the better.

<comment><USER29> I feel like, "Hey, you're close minded, read this book to find out why" isn't going to get you very far. But good luck.

<comment><USER28> These types of books usually have a more positive approach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> A sentiment of a bygone era. In the new middle ages we are in now, its all about "feel". And it its feels right it is right.

<comment><USER31> I think it may be selective memory. I suspect that the past had plenty of cocksure blowhards who were "often wrong but never uncertain". But a good fraction of the great minds had intellectual humility.

And it may be the same now. Hundreds of years from now, those who think "if it feels right it is right" will be forgotten, and humanity will remember a higher fraction of those who valued truth more than their own opinion or feeling.

<comment><USER30> Sure but they weren't dictating the intellectual climate as they are now and as they were then.

<comment><USER32> I think it's pretty easy to find historical examples of that.

<comment><USER30> Yes around 1200 AD its no problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> corrigibility and defeasibility

</comment><comment><USER34> Saying that social scientists need to be taught intellectual humility is tantamount to saying they are not scientists at all, which seems to be the real problem.

<comment><USER22> Social scientists are people. We are all people first. None of us are robots. We can be rational in certain situations, but overall, we are not a rational species.

In order to fight some of our worse qualities, we have to first identify them. Then break down any social barriers that keep us from not fighting them.

That is what this article is doing. It is naming one of them, and then asking us to be forgiving. And helping us realize that mistakes are not as punished as we all may think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There were comments on a recent post here that drifted to children reacting to vaccines that surprised me with how many claimed with absolute certainty there was no link to autism.

I'll certainly acknowledge that most kids do not suffer such a reaction but not that it's impossible for some to, but those who were certain wouldn't do that.

Some of them were quite demanding about it. Almost insisting I admit I am wrong. I may well be, but I also know there's a lot we do no know about human biology. Just what we've learned about "gut bugs" in the past few years is pretty solid evidence of that. And it's also one of those cases where the more we've learned the more we realize there's even more we do not know.

To me, uncovering something that reveals how little we know, now that's exciting.

<comment><USER35> One issue is that we're encouraged from every angle to make fun of those challenging the narrative; which is very effective in discouraging people from doing just that, especially after having taken part themselves.

<comment><USER13> > make fun of

While this exists there will be incentives to something other than truth.</comment></comment></comment>


Detroit Is Stomping Silicon Valley in the Self-Driving Car Race - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/04/detroit-stomping-silicon-valley-self-driving-car-race/ <comment><USER2> Not everyone trying to make self-driving cars a reality aren't looking to enter the manufacturing and distribution business though.

There's a case to be made that is self-driving technology becomes commoditized then GM, Ford, etc. will be the "winners". I don't think that's the assumption the non-manufacturing companies are operating under. Time will tell.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think this is a decent article but the headline is horribly editorialized. The study in question makes some good points, but it really is just one guess at how things will go. A good example is the discussion of Waymo:

> Waymo, by comparison, scores top marks for technology but drags in the > production strategy and sales, marketing, and distribution buckets. The > company plans to work with legacy automakers to put its tech in cars, but > has not yet struck any major deals. "They have almost every piece of > this—except the product strategy," says Abuelsamid.

Is the implication that Waymo will just leap into first as soon as it strikes a deal with a legacy auto maker? The article admits that the study had massive movements between this years and last, partly due to deals and the like.

This headline is definitely not HN quality.

</comment><comment><USER4> This was a key quote (either from the article or one of the linked articles)

""It's a lot easier for the company that actually has the infrastructure to create vehicles to recreate what Uber's done, than the other way around," Abuelsamid says."

This is the key. There are Uber clones done by kids in basements. There aren't Ford 150 pickup clones.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm actually surprised that a limited traffic jam autopilot isn't out yet. It'd be enormously helpful to a lot of people.

<comment><USER6> My Prius Prime has an automatic radar cruise control which works pretty well in traffic jams - it will speed up and slow down with the car in front of it (including coming to a stop and starting again). The only problem is that even at the closest of the following distances it will let you select, it hangs back a bit, which encourages other drivers to try and cram themselves in (which then causes the Toyota to fall back again, and on and on). Still, fairly effective.</comment></comment>


Vellum – a reading layer for your Twitter feed - <AUTHOR> http://vellum.nytlabs.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> related blog post: [http://blog.nytlabs.com/2014/04/25/vellum-a-reading-layer- fo...](http://blog.nytlabs.com/2014/04/25/vellum-a-reading-layer-for-your- twitter-feed/)

not groundbreaking really, there are a few other good/active things for this sort of use case, but good work out of NYT R+D anyways</comment>


American college kid joins Libya rebels for 'vacation' - <AUTHOR> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0901/American-college-kid-joins-Libya-rebels-for-vacation

<comment><AUTHOR> As a follow up, he has been booted out of the rebel army.

[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/libyan- rebels-...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/libyan-rebels-give- their-ucla-tagalong-boot/42044/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Now, _this_ is living. Life is a lot of things, but life is also revolution, war, and death. And this guy chose to live it.

<comment><USER3> I think I agree with you, although I feel like characterising this as a "vacation" is unfortunate.</comment></comment>


Banksy Announces a Monthlong Show on the Streets of New York - <AUTHOR> http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/banksy-announces-a-monthlong-show-on-the-streets-of-new-york

<comment><AUTHOR> _The images in "Better Out Than In" are accompanied by a loopy audio guide, accessed by calling an 800 number that appears beside the stencil. (Dial 1-800-656-4271, ext. 1 for this one.) "This piece is typical of Ban-sky's output," the guide says. "The children in this case represent youth, and the sign represents – well, signs."_</comment>