foldingmoney

>the tells are in pretty much every paragraph.

It's not just misleading — it's lazy. And honestly? That doesn't vibe with me.

[/s obviously]

as depressing as it is to say, i think it's a bit like the year is 1906 and we're complaining that these new tyres for cars they're making are bad because they're no longer backwards compatible with the horse drawn wagons we might want to attach them to in the future.

exactly. when you're new, virtually any type of lifting you do is going to create sufficient stimulus to trigger maximum muscle growth, because you're going from 0 to 1. unfortunately, since the only people that researchers can usually convince to participate in their studies are untrained, this has led to an enormous amount of junk studies where they try to extrapolate the results to people who are not untrained.

>I'm not saying that pleasure-seeking for its own sake is inherently bad or wrong, but how would you compare and contrast the behavior of a drug addict and a high-risk climber, if you were explaining it to an alien anthropologist?

the argument is probably that today's extreme sports risk takers were last epoch's explorers who helped humanity conquer the planet.

(not the Ada Lovelace book of the same name)

>My understanding is that evolution is specifically directional change in response to a pressure, not random drift or coincidence.

Evolution just means change, and it includes genetic drift. In common parlance, 'evolution' generally implies improvement, but that's not the technical definition.

iirc the pilot retirement age is at least in part due to radiation exposure.

>A more fair approach would be a special assessment on net worth.

how would a wealth tax incentivise people to save more and spend less?

>Higher interest rates won't stop greed.

we've just come off ~15 years of stubbornly low inflation. if the cause is greed, did companies only just become greedy in the last two years?

>It'll hurt families who need to buy a new car or need to sell their home though.

but it'll also stop punishing families who have savings. can't please everyone.

yeah won't allow promotion on either mobile or desktop

>If you take the entire sum of your own unique talents, and find a way to combine them properly, you can become extraordinary simply by finding a new way of looking at the world, even if the individual talents you have are not outstanding compared to others.

maybe i'm too pessimistic in the opposite direction but this kind of argument always sounds like appealing nonsense to me. appealing because we'd like it to be true, and because the number of possible combinations is great enough that it's not immediately obvious that it isn't true. but in reality, skills don't generally exist in isolation, and as long as we're still attaching some kind of objective qualitative value to being 'extraordinary' beyond just being unique, most people who are mediocre at two things are not going to significantly exceed being mediocre at their combination, whereas people who are extraordinary at one thing are (in my experience) quite often at least near-extraordinary at a few others.

Most of the people criticising my points are glossing over the key word of my post, which is listed. Not every business is listed, and those can be run for all sorts of reasons, but a listed business is a stock first and a business second. The stock is meant to enhance the owners' wealth (whether by going up, paying dividends, or both), and the business is just the means to that end. At least in theory, when that happens in a well regulated society, it turns out that the best way to make the owners richer is to give people what they want, and to allocate capital in the most efficient and productive way. Obviously reality may differ.

>Removing any other expense will be detrimental to the business, that is, make it work less well. Nothing will happen to the business if the owners don't get any dividends.

I'd say two things.

1. A listed business wouldn't exist in the first place (or in its present form) if owners hadn't been enticed to put up capital in the hope of getting dividends.

2. The purpose of a listed business is to pay the owners, not to produce goods or services - producing goods or services is just a means through which to pay the owners.

>If you'd like a tale about the 1970-80s then feel free to ask and I'll tell you what I saw. With luck, my memories aren't too shot.

Please do.

a lot of these read like stealth marketing for bicycles imo

>I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 years from now

you think AI auto-generated movies will kill the human film industry? AI novels? these are both fundamentally different from the kind of recombination that DALL-E is doing.

>the only reason I haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as well).

3d printing

>these AI algorithms are very much meant to kill the image industry, whether that was the intention of the researchers or not.

hmm

>I worry that the takeaway for people that only read clickbait headlines about the 2012 Stradivarius study was: expert violinists can't tell the difference between cheap and expensive violins.

A key point that's omitted in most of the reporting is that the Strads were loaned to the organisers on the condition that they not alter their setup in any way, whereas all the modern violins were adjusted and given new strings immediately before the test. It's also not true that the testers couldn't tell the difference between the new and old violins; they weren't asked whether they could tell, they were only asked which they preferred.

#6 sounds an awful lot like #2 + #3

>Here's someone complaining $200,000 is not enough.

I don't think they're complaining that $200k isn't enough; they're complaining that it's unfair for them not to get a stimulus cheque when they pay a lot of taxes.

I'd add on to this: when you listen to a piece of music, you subconsciously anticipate what will come next, and you get enjoyment from the way the piece meets or surprises your expectations. This plays a big part in the perception of musicality.

Jazz artists play with their listeners' expectations just like artists in any other genre of music, but people who listen to a lot of jazz have developed a set of expectations that others don't have. Jazz listeners find jazz musical and viscerally enjoyable in the same way listeners of other genres enjoy their music - it's not (only) an abstract intellectual appreciation, which I get the impression a lot of people suspect.

To me, a better analogy than reading Shakespeare in a language you don't understand is watching a sport you don't know the rules to. We're both watching the same people make the same moves, but if you don't know the rules, you don't know what to expect, and every move looks random and purposeless. Someone who knows the rules watches the same thing and is able to enjoy the interplay between the expected and unexpected, to appreciate the skill and the moments of brilliance and drama, on what I think few would claim is not a visceral level.

likewise.

https://www.afr.com/property/residential/what-the-national-m....

AUD$955,927 national median and AUD$1.4m Sydney median.

>Damn, I would assume houses must be much cheaper in Australia than in the US?

The median home price in Australia is about US$725k. So no.

My understanding is that most hedge funds get the bulk of capital from institutional investors, e.g. pension funds.

>Main street (retail investors, taxpayers) have had enough of this, and a lot of anger is directed at institutional investors for always getting the easy money and the bailouts at their expense. They want to see the game applied fairly, such that when the bets go sour, they go bankrupt and don't get bailed out like in 2008. In the 2015 CHF forex crisis, many brokers went bankrupt overnight. That's what should happen to Melvin, and to anyone who takes the stupid risky bets that don't work out.

Hedge funds mostly invest client money, not their own. Yes they take pretty hefty fees but they're trying to make money for their clients, who typically are main street.

> Nazi labour laws were best in contemporary world. Reduced work hours, periodic breaks, paid holidays and sponsored trips to Italy as perks.

They got sponsored trips to a lot of places in Europe: Poland, France, Russia...probably best to avoid that last one though.

Having more money can also increase the set of (good) choices available to you.

Did you get to see the fabulous Sunsphere?

This is a property of _what the device is doing_ (moving heat from one place to another) as opposed to being a property of how it's powered, though.

The higher levels of human intelligence are more useful for navigating the social than the physical environment, and obviously the social environment can vary drastically depending on where you live.