iknowSFR

Or how about your opinions on yourself? Analysis of your own behavior, done by AI, seems like a a decade of therapy provided by a maybe-good-or-bad psychologist happening in minutes. The impact of that could change how you think about the world by reinforcing biases you hold or weakening strengths by making you self conscious.

Ultimately you run the risk of having a computer program redefine who you are as a human and that begs the question of whether you’re really you after that?

Genuine question as I’m far less technical than the crowd here. Has this not always been the case?

https://archive.ph/dd5Kl

“Almost 2%. The reduction in carbon-dioxide concentration when 60 square centimetres of plants were placed in an office, according to one study.”

It’s no coincidence that everything from energy sources to civil rights to military strategy to trade policy struggle to evolve from the same era the US became a super power, 1945-1955. Its downfall is its nostalgia for that period.

Maybe but we have a recent sample of Paramount ($12b) acquiring WB ($62b).

You can trade on non-public information if you obtain that information unintentionally. Now you have to be able to prove it’s unintentional if the question came up. A real experience example of this is if you work in an office building and your neighboring company, a public company, is being raided by the FBI. Can you use that information to take a position in the market? Yes, according to multiple attorneys we spoke with.

I bring this up because we assume the trading is coming from insiders but I wonder if the parties behind this have baked in a layer similar to my story above.

To close this back to your comment, and I don’t have an answer here: is knowing who the insiders are and acting on that a crime? If you did know and didn’t report them, are you breaking a law? Or worse, you reported it to the deaf ears of a regulator that are focused elsewhere or are under resourced to respond now?

The robot vote is a critical and quickly growing minority group since Wall-E v Sanders determined that all sentient robots were to be treated as citizens. Immediately after, Citizens United was rendered useless and large corporations moved their investments from campaign finance to literal voting machines.

I am a bit confused with the consistency of this community in speaking about MBA’s running their orgs or PM’s making bad decisions… it feels like more resistance by engineers to learn business than the business side not learning code. What I mean is that what a company values seems to be widely understood and the reaction from HN is “they’re wrong.” If anything, this is the green light for engineers to step into the business side and fix all the complaints they’ve had for decades.

Then you’re going to be left behind. I’m going to be left behind.

Every problem or concern you raise will adapt to the next world because those things are valuable. These concerns are temporary, not permanent.

Good lord the reveal at the end seemed mistimed.

I’m seeing vibe coding redefine what the product manager is doing. Specifically, adding solution execution to its existing strategy and decision making responsibilities. The PM puts solutions in front of a customer and sees what sticks, then hands over the concept to engineering to bake into the larger code base. The primary change here is no longer relying on interviews and research to make product decisions that engineering spends months building only to have flop when it hits market. The PM is being required to build and test dozens of solutions before anything makes its way to engineering resources. How engineering builds the overall solution is still under their control but the fit is validated before it hits their desk.

Couple things to add. First, rates are much lower when you’re leveraging 10,000 homes at 3:1. That allows you to purchase 20,000 additional homes, which isn’t something the normal individual can do. Second, most of this borrowing was done during the 0% interest days and when rates went up after Covid, a lot of the operations grinded to a halt. Third, there’s no regulatory environment for rent rates and rate increases.

I worked with these firms for several years when the business concept was in its earlier stages. The money coming in to buy these homes quickly went from family offices (2013-2019) to state pension funds (2019-present) to sovereign funds (2020-present).

Things like the largest pension fund in Sweden is invested in buying SFR. Or the sovereign fund of the UAE.

I’m not sure if that changed your opinion on this not having practical benefit for the average American.

Bookmark this comment because it’s going to be very relevant in a few years.

If this is true, is it just the HN community that understands this? Otherwise, wouldn’t it make sense that the market understands this already and doesn’t fall for the hype? It doesn’t pass the smell test for me that it’s that transparent of a play for hype. What am I missing?

VC still requires startups to find themselves and prove something first. China basically has a program to do X and anyone can sign up to be a part of that program. All are funded and the winners emerge. I’m broadly generalizing that process but that’s not how VC approaches it.

There’s a NYT’s interview several months back where the journalist phrased it as in America, you have to prove success first to get funded. But in China, funding comes first and the successful companies emerge.

As every consultant will eventually respond as that conversation sputters: it might be easier for us to define what AGI isn’t.

Sure but isn’t allowing those company to pick and choose what industries they service a dangerous precedent? They’ve monopolized the consumer credit markets and as such, can use that weight to dictate competition in consumer markets.

Yeah, this needs to be considered down to the individual level. If your employer not only incentives you to go against your best interests but also threatens the stability of your role, then your choices are either do the job or accept that you might not be reliably employed. This is the culmination of decades of moving power from the employee to the employer.

I often think about this as well. If you have a problem to solve, it’s easiest to use the internet and find threads or videos to solve that problem. But in the “before times” you would need to seek out someone with experience and have a full conversation. While having the information at our fingertips is much more convenient and helps bridge gaps in communities that would lack experienced experts, it does cut the opportunity to socialize but at least 1 conversation per problem.

Ah, I interpreted as a reflection of general work cultures. My 2000s years were always formal.

Wasn’t the same true of his original attire selection, though? If he wore jeans in the 2000s, he would have faced consequences. So he wore slacks. What’s really changed?

Is the communication for you or for other AI tools? Meaning is your eventual role just making sure it’s within reason and keeping the AI to AI ecosystem functioning properly? If the output is missing something or misrepresenting something, you update.

Your responsibility is now as an AI response mechanic. And someone else that’s ingesting your AI’s output is making sure their AI’s output on your output is reasonable.

This obviously doesn’t scale well but does move the “doing” out of human hands, replacing that time with a guardrail responsibility.

If you’re supplementing probiotics, there is some research about inulin to talk through with your doctor. There’s a chance that inulin is carcinogenic even at lower doses. A lower dosage might be 4g and a typical probiotic is 200g.

Reasons to be wary of this research, including:

-The rodent-to-human study element

-causation v correlation

-sample size

Reasons to take this research seriously:

-Probiotic supplements are relatively new and long term effects aren’t understood.

-The “health as a business” realities that are very much at work here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277257232...

https://news.gsu.edu/2018/10/18/adding-refined-fiber-to-proc...

This?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_algal_bloom?wprov=sfti...

What’s the sample size of significant downward moves in the market during the existence of BTC?

That appears in the cards already. In reality, it’s a question of when the money will end up with PE?

What I’m curious about is if you moved all of it to cutting the national debt by 1/3, what happens? Is there a new lifeline for the nation’s economy?

I’m not following this. Can you explain a bit more plainly?

I would love to see a multi-decade model of 4 scenarios measuring quality of life, economic growth, and wealth distribution specifically around the re-allocation of this $12T.

1. Baseline Status quo - no changes.

2. Move all $12T into reducing the $36T of US debt. 1 time payment. All 401k’s are reduced to $0.

3. Allow for PE to productize into this $12T, siphoning off various amounts over time.

4. 401k holders can choose their own non-traditional investments.

I’m not advocating for any specific outcome because I know nothing on this topic but as a starting point, show me what happens with each, normalized and compared.