Roughly a third of the market is digging a $1T-a-year-deep-hole with <5yr amortization schedule on all of it and passing around the same $100B like it's in all of their bank accounts simultaneously. Yeah, shit's going to work out for sure, in all of the same ways that flying a plane into the side of a mountain has a clear ending.
Crazy to assume that an individual of vision has so thoroughly dropped the plot simply because their position is at odds with tech industry orthodoxy. If anything that should be an indication to more closely examine your assumptions.
Sibling comment says "diversify", and I tend to agree. I've seen some shit, man. 2000 dot bomb, 2008, bumps along the way. 2000, I was in tech stocks like everyone else, lost a bunch. 2008, learned my lesson and was much more diversified. Lost some money, but not nearly as much as others. It was amazing watching, say, the S&P crater while our portfolio..just didn't. It just went down a fair chunk, and came back later (and probably didn't come back as much as it did for those that held on to their equities).
Diversification is a smoothing function. You won't get as much upside holding 25-30% bonds, but your portfolio won't suffer as much on the downside. If you're young and not ready for boring old-people investments like bonds, at least limit your tech stock exposure. Go buy boring utilities or something, maybe Berkshire Hathaway B shares.
One other advantage to diversification that I hear very little about is this: if you have to sell in a down market, you can sell your bonds and hold on to your equities in the hopes they'll bounce back. Regardless, you're not held to selling depreciated assets like equities, you can sell the bonds which are boring, but probably actually went up while everything else turns to shit.
A side effect of keeping a stock/bond asset allocation is that when the stocks tank you'll naturally be overweight on bonds, so you can sell bonds to buy stocks (the dip).
I mean yeah, diversify we must but idk anyone who had a retail portfolio that didn't eat shit in 2008 so it isn't real obvious where the bomb shelter is.
Stay market diversified and you will be fine in the long run. The AI bubble popping will be painful for all in the short term but a blip on the radar in the long term.
These hedge funds get wound up in complicated, leveraged, illiquid layered stacks of (often private) investment vehicles that go from highly profitable to financial nuke overnight. Thats how they just get wiped out while everyone else just has a bad day.
Ironically the whole point of “hedge” in hedge fund is for this to NOT happen but we’re seeing increasingly inexperienced players like here just building a financial nuke and then acting all surprised when it lights off.
Of course not. But literally any excuse that comes to hand will be deployed if it helps the tech industry continue to avoid meaningful consequences. The same handful of companies that have engineered a global surveillance suite that rivals the most tyrannical sovereign governments wildest dreams (and can trivially detect the approximate age of a user) will without a shred of irony deploy legions of paid influencers and other astroturf to decry age verification as an assault on privacy.
But it is an assault on privacy. If "protecting kids" was the goal here they'd push for regulation that forces websites to return standardized metadata that then gets interpreted by the user agent which can be configured by the parent.
Nah, that's a perfectly fine technical solution. Powers that be don't think like that. They understand pulling someone over to check their license, so something like that will do.
sigh If data brokerages, Meta, Google, and Palantir are all staring at you how is it possible to claim privacy is even possible? Like, you have to have a thing before it's possible to assault it.
So having established one would have to institute I'm-hiding-from-at-least-two-sovereign-governments-that-are-actively-hunting-me levels of OPSEC to even stand a chance of avoiding being thoroughly fingerprinted I'm fairly confident in my point is proven here. I don't see anyone proposing to gut Meta and Google's business models, ban data brokerages, or any of a myriad other possible things that would at least in theory result in the possibility of actual online privacy. What I'm seeing is folks screeching at the prospect of a legal framework by which these companies negative impacts on kids might be managed. And of course literally no alternatives are proposed to address said harms in lieu of requiring ID so here we are.
You're attacking a strawman, there are definitely alternatives such as mandating a protocol for describing content that parent-controlled content policies in user agents would key off of. I mean even today you can just ban instagram on your kid's phone. Regarding futility of trying to preserve privacy, I'm not sure if you're aware that Apple doesn't have much of a standalone service business and it's widely deploying OHTTP, anti-fingerprinting, etc. Obviously they moderate their efforts to not push too far, too fast, yet fingerpriting a mobile user on iOS is not trivial.
I made the same error as you, before realizing that in this molecule the fluorine is bounded to a carbon not an oxygen. Fluorine once bounded to a carbon won't move from there unless it receive a lot's of energy. A fluorine bounded to an oxygen really wants to be elsewhere and it's ready to pay a lot's of energy to make it happen! So the scary looking part of that chemical is incredibly stable and this is what make this substance potentially dangerous.
Replacing "hand over your keys" with "perform detailed inspection of your vehicle, including undercarriage and suspension for damage before leaving" doesn't sound particularly enticing. Given I'm capable of parking my own vehicle without having an anxiety attack in the process I'm also fairly certain this thing doesn't solve any of my problems. I am likewise surprised that this seemingly pointless, grossly overengineered system that is nakedly hostile to minimum wage tier workers like valet service drivers isn't being warmly received here, but for different reasons.
Low grade engagement bait that reads like a mediocre attempt at whitewashing slop. If the author's premise holds then we're saying that there's no daylight between the works of an individual who has taken a literal lifetime to hone a skillset and any random dilletante armed with the appropriate AI tools.
>that there's no daylight between the works of an individual who has taken a literal lifetime to hone a skillset and any random dilletante armed with the appropriate AI tools.
Well, the promise of AGI and current LLM trajectory looks like this is how it's going to be. This is part of the reason that juniors or university students feel animosity towards LLMs.
Have you looked at the recent prompts mathematicians use to disprove conjectures? One of the last ones related to graph theory was basically: continue research...enough partial results, give me a breakthrough...
That's not what the author is saying at all. You are presuming that AI is capable of generating original thoughts. The author's point is that original thought is what matters. If a skilled writer with decades of experience can generate low effort content just as well as someone using an LLM. Your use of the word "dilettante" is elitist and says that only certain people should be allowed to express themselves.
I understand the author's claims that ideas matter and that is a major part of what I'm sneering at. Ideas grow on trees and they're worthless 100% of the time there aren't skilled and motivated individuals behind them pushing. The arts are and should be capital E elitist for all of the same reasons my kid's refrigerator art isn't hanging in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa. Nobody's stopping you or anyone from grabbing some art supplies and expressing yourself to your heart's content, but unless you put the time in you aren't going to be on a level with Rembrant regardless of what toolset you use to try to paper over the gaps in your skillset.
I'm guessing you aren't aware how much of that innovation comes from academic research instead of direct private investment by pharma companies, or that there is a thriving pharmaceutical industry in places like Europe. Ironically your chosen examples are based on innovations pioneered by a German biotech (BioNTech) and a Danish pharmaceutical company (Novo Nordisk). What relevance the Soviet Union might have 34 years after it's collapse is something of a mystery.
reply