All either party needs to do is become the reasonably sane party.
-Jettison wokeness and DEI
-Stop being antivax
-Be pro abortion
-Fix healthcare (for real)
-Solve the problem of homelessness and drug addiction (bring back insane asylums, put drug addicts in rehab or jail, take back our streets, stop the cartels and chinese manufacturers at the source)
-Stop crime (longer sentences, laws are enforced and enforced equally)
-Stop immigration of low human-capital immigrants
-Put a stop to our incredibly litigious culture (put caps on # of lawyers)
-Ensure reasonable monetary policy
-Ensure reasonable housing policy (if crime is controlled we can live in cities again and support mixed zoning that allows for decreased cost of living in major cities and more livable cities)
Huge amounts of low hanging fruit that would vastly improve the standard of living for the average person. We need to tell the craziest 10% of the population on either side to go to hell, and if they don't like it, put them in jail, because the normies deserve a society that functions. Aren't people tired of being held hostage by all of these fools?
I agree there's a lot of easy stuff that would improve life for the average person, but I hope you're messing around when you say "put them in jail" lol
Is this person rich and successful solely or in large part just from their investments?
Where's the proof?
Very few people are billionaires from investing.
If Nassim Nicholas Taleb is such a great investor, where is his hedge fund? He's a writer who sells compelling books, nothing more!
As Paul Graham states, billionaires build.
Warren Buffett is the exception that proves the rule, and even he says "Just toss your money into an index fund."
If the richest (and therefore wisest) investor in the world is humble enough to admit that it's a (nearly) impossible game to win at, then who is Jim Cramer?
It’s amazing to me that otherwise smart people can’t see this. Maybe there’s a fog of war thing going on when it comes to the equity markets because I imagine many would question the exact same behavior coming from a sports handicapper or race track tout but don’t see it with the Cramers of the world.
Cramer's hedge fund did very well, and his picks for his sales clients at Goldman were very good and his reputation based on making a lot of money for sales clients gave him the ability to raise his fund.
Running a huge fund is very stressful and Cramer I don't think was cut out for it. It's a lot easier to perform on TV and he has made a lot of money that way. In the 90's I respected him but I think he has fallen a long way from there.
> If Nassim Nicholas Taleb is such a great investor, where is his hedge fund?
Taleb was a founding partner of Empirica Capital from 1999 until about 2006. He has also been active in Universa https://www.universa.net/, which is an active black swan fund selling long-vol strategies.
I was reading the Psychology of Money, where the author talked about Benjamin Graham, who was a mentor to Buffet, and it mentioned that most of Graham's wealth came from a few stock picks that went against everything he wrote about in the the iconic book, Intelligent Investor.
I see a few major problems in the pursuit of modern scientific inquiry.
- Bureaucratization. The modern university model is basically the DMV. It functions to sustain the lifestyle of the administrators in charge and to prevent them from losing power, money, status. And no one enjoys it, not the employees, not the customers, etc. and yet who can change it for the better? It can and does only get worse, more bureaucratic, more soul sucking. Ask the post-docs.
- Feminization of academia and science. This is related to the bureaucratization. Process, safety, paperwork, meetings and community consensus are paramount. All becomes politics. Everyone must agree. Only small questions can be answered. You need permission for everything. Anything truly novel is considered a threat to the scientific community. Modern day "scientism" and other beliefs are the replacement to christianity in the west, and women are more religious (look it up), and academe is the modern day church. All dissent or inquiry is squashed.
- Denial of Great Man Theory. Great men invented modernity, and of course our modern industrial state requires many layers of managers due to the huge complexity, so sizes of labs, colleges, corporations, assembly lines, supply chains have exploded, and no one person can manage it all in their mind.
The false belief is thus: modern industrial society requires the managerial class to function, therefore the managerial class invented it, and it requires the managerial class to progress. Therefore great man theory, or the idea of the innovative genius, is supposedly debunked.
And yet you see nearly all major advances come from tech bros like Elon Musk et al who are trailblazers, ignore complaints of the bureacracy, etc.
- Could the university system have produced facebook, spacex, tesla, microsoft, apple? You can go on and on.
Please don't interpret this as an attack on women or femininity. Society requires everyone for it to function properly, and everyone has a positive contribution to make, but we have to be able to iterate and change when we realize certain modes of endeavor simply do.not.work.
Interesting political philosophy, but little that speaks to the pursuit of science. Universities may be bureaucratic, but those bureaucracies have almost nothing to do with scientific agendas. Likewise, grant review panels work hard to find innovative, not consensus, proposals. Again, the main thing the management does is demand more external funding, it does not set scientific direction. And, of course, Facebook, Microsoft, etc is not science- at best it is engineering.
> Likewise, grant review panels work hard to find innovative, not consensus, proposals.
I don't want to give specific examples of research topics to avoid poisoning the well, but could you argue with a straight face that an academic that wanted to do research into some topics that could be likely to yield certain types of politically incorrect conclusions wouldn't face extreme difficulty getting funding or extreme risk to their career?
I think it's easy to see how much scientific research on certain topics could be stuck within a narrow range of opinion because people are more concerned with what gets funding or doesn't get them shunned.
I do not know anything about grant panels outside my field of biology. But I am certain that the overwhelming majority of grant money is spent on scientific questions that have virtually no obvious political dimension. I’m sure there are grant applications that have a substantial political component, but I would be surprised if they accounted for even 5% of research funds. Social and political science receives a very small fraction of research funds, and while one might argue that allocations of health research budgets are politically shaped, viruses and oncogenes have no politics.
> Best way to learn [to understand] a language is to watch tv and movies.
There's no replacement for having to dig into the "vocabulary bag" and pull out a word when you need it, or the "fluency" that comes from having someone ask you a question that you have to string together multiple vocabulary words _in the right order_ to answer
It's like any homework: it's the challenge that solidifies the pathways, otherwise just sitting in a calculus class would be all one needed to become Laplace
I do 30 mins to an hour of a language every day. After I’m done in Duolingo I work my way through a news story on a local news aggregator (I.e. dumbed down) website using Google Translate to figure out things I don’t understand by picking out words. I find trying to identify phrases in the articles useful as it’s starting to give me a sense of basic idiom.
Feels like a good way to consolidate and push forward. It also gives me a bit of culture since news articles are revealing of the way people think.
Contract law is pretty comprehensive and has been forged over centuries by scammers and grifters, I doubt there would be much new here.
This doesn't sound like it's retroactive, they're negotiating a renewal and Google changed their price. Doesn't seem out of the ordinary unless there were some particular terms about pricing and renewals.
Google isn't a charity, they're a greedy non-ethical corporation that is not famous for providing reliable consistent products. I'm surprised this kind of behavior comes as a surprise to anybody in tech.
I mean, if the .com registry said to Google “renewals are $10B for Google.com or we let someone else have the domain”, that would border on extortion. People build brands on these, and it’s odd that you can’t permanently buy one or at least have a predictable cap on price increases.
> I mean, if the .com registry said to Google “renewals are $10B for Google.com or we let someone else have the domain”, that would border on extortion.
I don't think it would be extortion, it would just be Verisign breaching their agreement with ICANN.
> People build brands on these, and it’s odd that you can’t permanently buy one or at least have a predictable cap on price increases.
I think you could have those things if you use services that are backed with appropriate contracts or regulations. It's more odd that people would build their brand using a company that is not known for providing stable, consistent, long term products and services.
> A classic example is creating a dependency and then raising the price.
Okay let's see your example then. What's a case you are thinking of that is vaguely similar to this that was ruled a breach of contract?
> Also look up "antitrust".
This isn't a constructive argument. I could equally just rebut it by telling you to look up "antitrust", right? What part of antitrust laws would apply here? Surely if you have an idea you can write a sentence or two to explain.
Price gouging is a civil offence in quite a few jurisdictions. But this isn't price gouging under those definitions. Those laws concern necessities in times of disaster. Which a domain cash grab is not.
There's no hidden secret. It's right there in the open.