HN user
Former professional gambler. Decent amateur chess player. I've founded PioSOLVER which at one point in time was big in poker niche. These days I am trying to spend as much time cycling in sunny weather as possible. I am hoping to get back into programming one day!
Oral-B is an American company. Phillips is an European company. Phillips toothbrushes don't have removable batteries (at least none of many I owned had them).
Now connect the dots. That is how things work in EU.
It's a culture thing. There are even smaller markets like Taiwan that developed industries EU didn't. Western EU countries are very risk averse, anti-business and has too conservative hierarchy to develop this kind of culture. You can see it as early as in school system where the focus is on rising the floor while forgetting about the ceiling.
>If you do HIIT you cycle as fast as you can for 10-15 seconds (or until properly worn out) then rest long enough to be able to do it again. You only end up working out for less than one minute or just half a minute in total but you get similar if not better results than the 45 minutes workout.
You will improve things like muscle buffer capacity and maybe VO2max (although for that longer intervals are much better) but those are not the most important things for metabolic health or health in general.
Recommending sprinting to untrained people is just a very bad idea. Fatigue and injury risk is higher. Benefits when it comes to metabolic health are lower.
It's important for exercise to be in heavy domain. Maybe it's a good idea to be in severe domain for a while (VO2max training) but typical HIIT hacks maximize pain/injury risk/recovery time while giving less benefits (unless you compare it to something silly like strolling for 30 minutes).
HIIT vs LISS is a false dichotomy. If you look at endurance athletes the most important part of the training is in "heavy domain" that is between what typical LISS and HIIT are. This is intensity high enough that you need to breathe faster but it's still sustainable for at least 40-70 minutes.
>E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort.
This is very unlikely to be true. Studies I've seen usually compare low intensity to HIIT and then measure things like VO2max improvements instead of direct health outcomes. VO2max is a good health indicator for general population and it's maximized short term by HIIT style of training but it's not enough to conclude short term improvements in VO2max imply long term health.
>The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.
I very much doubt it. Usual number mentioned is at least 5 hours but in general the more the better.
There are too many levels of indirection. At least in some countries you can vote on a person representing your town/area. This is one level of indirection less and allows people who aren't just chosen party members to win and then they have incentives to help the region.
In "standard" party democracy there is just nothing that can be done. Calling it democracy as in rule of the people is a disgrace.
It's not like we can do anything. We don't have democracy - we can't vote on issues and we (in most countries) can't even vote on people. We just vote on 2-3 non-fringe parties and they choose people and policies. You may formally put an X next to some name but it's just a chosen party official. They need to walk party line and be in good standings with the leadership to even get on the list.
There is just nothing you can do really in that system other than pursue career in politics which is a no-go for most people for obvious reasons.
EU is very lucky USA still has very strict immigration policy. If USA made it easy for highly skilled professionals to emigrate there then there would be almost no one capable left here.
There might be a community effort at some point. This happened in chess where the community recreated and then improved on Alpha Zero. You could run small training chunks on your machine. Some people donated thousands of hours of server time.
They all get serious investments from public companies and a lot of public companies rely on those private labs buying stuff from them.
Is there any scenario where it's not catastrophic for for the frontier labs?
They just got their market cut to a fraction. Investing in new tech is now very risky because even if things work out you might not be able to sell anything.
There were already serious doubts about ROI for the frontier labs. If they can only sell to 100 or so entities it's over business wise.
What's the endgame here?
How do you want them to behave? There is more demand than production. How would they choose who to sell to at lower prices? Organize a lottery?
You know what's way worse: drivers using their phones when driving. If you drive in a way that you kill a careless pedestrian it's a problem. It's cars and drivers almost exclusively.
Hashimoto did more valuable work than you and then he is in position to do more impact wherever he pleases.
>I donated $6000 to a halfway house last year and that doesn’t even come close to covering a single bed for a year. If I was a billionaire I could have built an entire halfway house.
We need some mechanism to select people who makes the choice. Popularity/lying contest (politics) ain't it. People making money conducting honest business is the best mechanism we have.
>If you assume Hashimotos net worth is one billion dollars, a $400k donation is equivalent to a $400 donation if your net worth is one million dollars.
It's not an equivalent. It's proportionally the same but it's completely different.
>I think this illustrates just how much a billion dollars is and maybe why a very small wealth tax can be used for a lot of good in society.
If anything it illustrates taxes should be lower for people like Hashimoto. Giving even more money to the government instead of leaving it with people like Hashimoto will result in a huge net loss.
67900
English is not my native language. I get my vocabulary from browsing the Internet. There is no way I know that many words.
I've dealt with users for a few years. Those were already selected to be a bit more technical than your average person because of a niche I am in. I can tell you an average user is in fact a dumbass.. Vast majority doesn't understand concepts like files. People have all kind of crap on their computers as they randomly click around and download everything. They save information in the downloads folder and complain it disappears. Their computer is 10x slower than yours because all the crap that runs on it.
The are also very aggressive when it comes to not reading error message or in fact learning anything about how computers or their OS works. Add to this usual entitlements and not seeing a problem with being dumb on purpose and you get a picture of an average user.
The companies know that and the dumbed down design we get is a diret consequence of it.
The system being 2 party, 3 party or 4 party system doesn't change much though. If you want to improve democracy you need stronger and more independent local governments and some way for people to directly vote on issues (both local and federal/country wise). Otherwise it will always be career politicians deciding on issues based on their personal interests.
Dude, there is a sign saying it's not a road for cars. Its driving into a road its banned from entering. It means Tesla can't even read road signs.
Elon said they will manufacture big heavy parts on the Moon to reduce the mass they need to use rockets for and maybe ship GPUs from Earth. It sounds like a science-fiction to me but what do I know. You can watch the full interview here:
The plan is to launch from Earth in the beginning stages and then switch to launching from the Moon which has no atmosphere so you don't need rockets and can use an electromagnetic gun instead. That requires satellite manufacturing on the Moon and I guess the minerals required will come from asteroid mining.
That's my understanding of what Elon said about how it's going to work.
The thing is at some point there is very little to gain. Once you have a nice place to live and don't need to sweat over daily expenses there isn't much that significantly improves life quality other than just having more time (that is working less) for yourself and your family.
Add high taxes to this and working is even less attractive when they take 50% from you. No wonder many highly qualified people decide to pass on that deal and just do the bare minimum which in OP case is nothing.
Fast entry rules are terrible. There is an old adage IPO - It's Probably Overpriced. Warren Buffet explained why: It's the issuer who chooses the price and time to enter the market. They will pick circumstances that suits them best. The chances that an IPO is a better deal than multiple other companies available in the auction market at that time which didn't get to choose the timing is close to 0 and it's not worth thinking about it - just don't buy IPOs ever.
I don't care about profitability, sustainability, ESG scores or anything like that. If the market is pricing unprofitable company at hundred of billions maybe there is a good reason for it. I do care about market having time to evaluate the company so index funds buy at fair prices. For this you need time and enough float and volume. Time being the main factor.
Maybe agentic PRs made it to production and performance cratered.
On a serious note I feel the same. Google is slow these days and the slowest and least reliable service of them all is Gemini. Sometimes I don't even know if it hang already (no error messages) or if it's still "thinking".
>I get your logic, but why all the handwringing over the short time frame for inclusion in these funds (days instead of a year)? None of that should be relevant if it's going to take so long to play out.
It matters at what price the forced buying starts.
>OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?
It's hard to say what's the play is because:
1)For many people making any kind of "play" triggers a tax event
2)It's not clear what ETFs to choose as currently there aren't many good options.
Imo one decent choice out of available ones are ETFs based on MSCI World Quality Factor index. It's not ideal because it still excludes companies like Berkshire Hathaway (because of accounting rules) but it avoids many suspicious companies (like MSTR) as well as mega IPOs. Unfortunately those are more costly (0.3% instead of like 0.05%). If you are in EU you and want world wide exposure you still need something for emerging markets (EU based ETFs based on that methodology exclude emerging markets).
You can also become an active investor but that's a job and I don't think many people want to take on it.
The main problem with going with bonds is that you are giving up equity premium and you still need to time the market for a comeback and that's very difficult.
Yeah it's years because they will slowly unload it to entities that are forced to buy (and as they do those entities will be forced to buy more). If you have money invested in those ETFs I think you may want to pay a bit more attention rather than making sarcastic comments unless you want to end up with 5%+ of your portfolio being invested in hopium by the end of 2028.
The threat is to end up with the bag, not that the bag explodes this month or the next.
SpaceX will not "win". Its current investors will win by selling at IPO and in following months at inflated prices to unwilling buyers.
You are giving up equity premium for the time till everything settles. You will also not know when that is. It's going to be more like a long term ticking bomb that may take years to detonate.
>If people really don't want SpaceX in their S&P 500 tracking ETF, we should see a S&P-ex SpaceX in short order.
"People" don't know much about finance to put it mildly. ETFs are created by market demand. Even "factors" ETFs are often based on completely irrational things like dividends, P/E ratios and other meaningless metrics. This happens because people are easily seduced by narratives ("solid dividend paying stocks", "low P/E ratio - good returns") which are plainly wrong but tempting to an average person.
Most people realized they don't know anything about finance and would like to pay someone (their fund manager) to make responsible decisions and expose them to wide market while avoiding blatant manipulations. Unfortunately the incentives are misaligned here. The managers' incentives are somewhere else. They are not paid by long term performance of their fund and they are disproportionally penalized for taking contrarian decisions.
People being force feed those mega IPOs losing money on them is bad for others as well - there will be less wealth for productive investments and more in hands of "players" (or scammers if you want to call it out). There might be a crash. Trust in financial market will plummet and hostile regulation might arise which other market participants will pay for even though they are not to blame.
I will not have exposure to those mega IPOs but I am in privileged position because:
-My understanding of financial markets is much better than that of an average person.
-I have quite a bit of time to follow all of it and react in time
-I pay 0% capital gain tax and use a broker with nearly 0 fees which allows me to rotate for free (almost)
-I know where and how to move my money so I don't lose advantages of wide market exposure
It took me a lot of effort to set it all up like that. An average person falls short on all of the above and is not in position to avoid donating part of their pension fund to Musk and Altman though. It is still bad for me for reasons mentioned above.
The issue is raised a lot but there is less and less time and I don't think it will hit mainstream before IPO is done and pension funds/passive investors will be forced to buy it.
It really does look bad: low float multiplier rule (that will overweight SpaceX) introduced very recently, fast inclusion mechanism, insiders being allowed to sell faster than usual etc.
It all looks like an orchestrated dump into passive investors/pension funds/other ETF holders.
Investing in IPOs is a terrible strategy historically. Here we have several mega IPOs incoming with rules being re-designed just for them to be included faster in your "passive" portfolio.
Andrew's take is "it's ready when it's ready but we hope it's good enough before it's fully ready that you want to use it anyway".
It's different and I like it. You get one shot at it and may just as well get it right in as many areas as possible.