Readit NewsThis is stupid for many reasons, including (but not limited to): non-monetary, in-kind benefits being excluded, perverse outcomes such as a decline in median wages "reducing poverty" and just about guaranteed continuation of this "poverty". So left wing politicians LOVE it. It's an everlasting cudgel that can never be fixed.
It's perhaps the single worst database in the world; with no type control, no relationship management, no data safety whatsoever to speak of (it even actively mangles your data), its interface is utter madness, and yet - it's the most used database in the world.
It's perhaps the single worst development and runtime environment in the world, obscuring code, making reasoning about code and relations between code almost impossible, using a very obscure macro language that even morphs between different computers, and yet - it's the most used development and runtime environment in the world.
It's perhaps the single worst protocol/data exchange format in the world, with dozens of intentionally obscure, undocumented versions, insane format with surprising limitation (did I mention it actively mangles your data? - it's worth repeating anyway), supremely inefficient, and yet - it's the most used protocol/data exchange format in the world.
I can't really think of anything in the computing world that has done as much damage as Excel.
Excel allows norm(al users)ies to scale Mt Impossible from the bottom where they don't care about types, or relationships, and don't want to (because it's too abstract). They want to solve a problem. So they start with simple data given meaning by physical space, and work up from there.
It's genius. It's computing for people that will never care about pointers.
Surely 'density' is a measure of stuff per area? Does 'areal density' have an additional meaning?
And I don't know, because I have about 60 minutes a week to think about this, and also good quantitative market analysis is really hard.
So whilst it may sound like a good reposte to go "wow, I bet you make so much money shorting!" knowing that I don't and can't, it's also facile. Because I don't mind if I'm right in 12, 24 or 60 months. Fwiw, I thought I'd be right in 12 months, 12 months ago. Oops. Good thing I didn't attempt to "make money" in an endeavor where the upside is 100% of your wager, and the downside theoretically infinite.
In more uncertain scenarios small companies can't take risks as well as big companies. The last 2 years have seen AI, which is a large risk these big companies invested in, pay off. But due to uncertainty smallish companies couldn't capitalize.
But that's only one possible explanation!
LOL. It's paying off right now, because There Is No Alternative. But at some point, the companies and investors are going to want to make back these hundreds of billions. And the only people making money are Nvidia, and sort-of Microsoft through selling more Azure.
Once it becomes clear that there's no trillion dollar industry in cheating-at-homework-for-schoolkids, and nvidia stop selling more in year X than X-1, very quickly will people realize that the last 2 years have been a massive bubble.
"in nearly all of these societies everyone got married and was expected to get around to having children because the community required them rather than necessarily because they wanted to."
I wonder if this is the uncomfortable truth behind low birth rates in the modern world, and nobody ever really _wanted_ to raise kids so much as they just kinda had to (especially if they wanted to have sex)
In the modern world, if you do not have children, but instead save your income in a retirement fund, you have an even better claim to the labor of the next generation than the childrens' parents through your increased retirement fund.
Privatized X matched with socialized anti-X is the classic condition for a moral hazard to emerge.
A special kind of insanity that puts me in a mild, cold sweat. Such filesystems can come for your family too!
Worth noting, my father was an early adopter of the home computer. It's somehow regressed over the years.
Even if I do not live a single year longer, improving the quality of those years is of value to me. There might even be some calculus underwhich its actually desirable to live a _shorter_ life but with far higher quality. Right now it sounds appealing to me if someone said "You'll only live to 85" (about a 2 year expected loss), "but you'll have the health of a 18-25 year old male for the entire time" ...
And if it does enable longevity... Society has a lot of catching up to do, and a lot of ripple challenges to effect. Things like what happens when someone who looks 25 is actually 55? Who should they socially acceptably date? (~25 year olds? ~55 year olds who look 25? ~55 year olds who look 55?)
What happens when your voter base has internalized values from far in the past? If we make someone live to 120, then we need to contend with values lasting for ~120 years, rather than dying off and being refreshed sooner.
Genuinely, who cares about sci-fi questions like this?
Why aren't you worrying about how fairly matching four-armed martial artists against two armed? Answer: because it's so unlikely to happen, it's not worth it. We're not getting 55 year olds with the body of a 25 year old, we're getting slim 55 year olds wearing make up and taking TRT. That's not youth! It's a dumb facsimile.