SSJPython

But that's my point: just because a society has a democratic political system does not mean everything has to be run through the same mechanism. Sometimes, the experts need to override the people, no matter how much of a fit they throw.

It's really awesome to see the public sector being able to experiment with new technologies to see what works. Rather than a top-down approach imposed on everyone all at once, the trial-and-error approach seems to work better. If it succeeds, then try to scale it up. If it doesn't, then it doesn't bring everyone else down with them.

> As far as I’m concerned, the verdict is in for nuclear plants generating highly radioactive long-lasting waste: people don’t want them. You won’t be able to overcome their opposition. What more is there to say? Let’s move on.

Why should public opinion override the need for energy security, which is a national security issue? Sometimes, the public makes the wrong decision. The public generally has trouble when it comes to differentiating between the short-term and long-term. Energy sovereignty should not be subject to the democratic will of the populace. Leave it to the experts and the technocrats, not the average Joe and Jane who operate with asymmetric information.

What about it? The US is also the hegemon in Europe. The "West" just means the US and its network of alliances. Other Western countries may want good relations with China, but they need to take US views into account because the US bankrolls their defense and is also a very important trade partner.

Large, strong countries do what they want and small, weak countries do what they must. That's the way it is and the way it's always been.

A rival for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The current hegemon in this region is the US. It is the strongest APAC power by far due to its numerous military bases as well as its network of strong allies (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea). China seeks to displace the US as the hegemon in APAC. Naturally, the current hegemon doesn't take too kindly to that. So they view China as a rival.

"There are four types of countries: developed, undeveloped, Japan and Argentina." - Simon Kuznets

Very interesting. Maybe Buffett isn't too concerned about the geopolitical risks to TSMC? There's been tons of chatter about China militarily reunifying with Taiwan by 2027 but I'm guessing Buffett thinks it's all hot air? Because if China does invade Taiwan, then TSMC would be the first to suffer.

That doesn't necessarily mean people follow this advice. It requires patience and discipline to do this.

Very few get rich trading options.

Most are no better and no worse off.

Some people get completely wiped out.

There is nothing wrong with buying low-cost index funds and holding them long-term. That's how you build wealth.

I feel like Apple, Amazon, and Google are the most robust and antifragile businesses. They offer goods and services that are quite inelastic and difficult to replace. Facebook, on the other hand, is something that can be replaced. I doubt its long-term viability as a business.

> If there was no COVID, people would be working in office as they've always done.

If my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle. This is a useless counterfactual because what happened has changed the dynamic. We can't base anything on a counterfactual.

> especially in contrast to predictions by economists that the opposite would happen.

Economists don't have sex, that's why they are economists.

I don't understand why working in an office isn't optional for certain jobs. If you want to go to the office, go in. If you want to work remote, then work remote. Why should either remote, hybrid, or on-site become a top-down policy imposed on all employees?

Not every single worker needs work to socialize with others. Some people have places of worship and other things to socialize.

All this means is that working in an office should be optional. Forcing it on everyone just because some people use work to socialize is not intelligent.

Why are we fucking with nature? Like literally what is the point of this? To show that we can? Some fucked up biological arms race with the other great powers?

When you fuck with nature, nature wins. Always.

> Capitalism holds neither employees nor noble missions in high regard.

That's because this isn't the goal of capitalism. The goal is growth and positive ROI through the use of private ownership of the means of production. Labor, like land and capital, are just an input to production in capitalism. And "noble missions" - whatever that means - are meaningless. They are subjective and have nothing to do with the economic system.

> For once, a billionaire is doing something worthy of our applause.

Populist bullshit. I'm happy companies like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. exist. They have made my life so much easier. One of the founders of JetBrains (IntelliJ, PyCharm) became a billionaire because they make spectacular products. Yes, these companies have issues, but welcome to reality: everything has issues. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It's mainly a supply issue. There is also a demand component but supply is the main bottleneck causing this sticky inflation. Originally they thought the supply issues would improve by now but it just can't catch up for some reason. So they need to force demand down until supply catches up. China also isn't helping with their foolish lockdown policies that are severely affecting supply chains.

Guess this is what happens when Western lawmakers sell out domestic manufacturing because some dickhead MBAs said it would be "efficient".

Business Schools specialize in churning out graduates with boomer ideology despite graduates being far removed from actual boomers. It's one of the reasons they detest WFH so much. Old school boomer mentality that still runs rampant in MBA programs.

When you have a school that charges astronomical prices, it is beholden to its customers: parents and students. Typically, the parents that pay these prices expect their children that want to do pre-med and become doctors to not be "weeded out" by the courses. So NYU, as a a profit-making business, listens to economic logic above all else. It's a shame. Merit must take precedence above all else. In fact, merit should be the only criterion.