JauntTrooper

Under the 3-factor economic growth model, there's three ways to increase economic growth:

1) Increase productivity (produce more from the same inputs) 2) Increase labor (more people working or more hours worked) 3) Increase capital (builds more equipment/infrastructure)

Early AI gains will likely be from greater productivity (1), but as time goes on if AI is able to approximate the output of a worker, that could dramatically increase the labor supply (2).

Imagine what the US economy would look like with 10x or 100x workers.

I don't believe it yet, but that's the sense I'm getting from discussions from senior folks in the field.

Wow... really?

I'm in my 40s and I remember my school days vividly. I remember like ~20-30 specific lessons and events from 4th grade alone.

I think Threads is disrupting Twitter fairly well... it's at 200 million+ monthly active users and growing.

I switched from Twitter to Threads and have been happy with it (Bluesky was invite only at the time so I didn't bother). Threads actually got me to start using Instagram too, ironically.

This happens every once in a while in investment banking, and we were warned about it regularly in HR training.

Here's Matt Levine on one of the incidents: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-04/wells-far...

The logic is if you couldn't trust a banker to not defraud their employer by submitting dishonest meal receipts, how could you trust them with client money and confidential information. I don't disagree.

Hatchet, by Gary Paulsen.

I must have read that book over a dozen times in middle school.

Here's his resignation letter:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/829224/0000829224240...

Cigar and Pipe smoking increases the risk of oral, throat, and esophageal cancers at a similar rate to cigarettes.

Here's one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755640/

This feels like a PR stunt.

It generates controversy so more people will listen to the interview on the X platform, and Lemon gets credit for appearing like a serious, uncompromising journalist that asks tough questions.

My wife and I haven't found that to be the case. We've been mindful to continue to keep our own interests, hobbies, and friends. My wife started a business when she was pregnant with our third child. I started taking bass lessons weekly last year. I play D&D twice a week.

It's important for children to see their parents have a healthy relationship with life that is independent of them. It shows them a model and gives them space to grow as their own person.

Childcare is definitely expensive. I'll have to work a few extra years because of it. That gets a lot easier after the first five years though, once they're old enough for public school.

And honestly, the transcendental journeys and questing you mention... I don't think that's really where satisfaction is found. I find the most inspiring parts of humanity come from the relationships we form and the people we help and love.

Being a father has been the most meaningful thing I've ever done.

It gives me a deep sense of satisfaction and joy to raise them, protect them, provide for them, guide them, and get to know them as they grow up.

Like you, I also work remotely. My career is fine. It pays the bills. I've been successful. But that's not where I find satisfaction now, and when I leave the workforce eventually it'll go on without me. The deeper, meaningful part of my life is what I've built outside of work - with my wife and kids, my family, my friends, and my piano and bass guitar.

Yes. Multiple studies have found nicotine promotes and accelerates tumor growth -- basically helping carcinogens develop into cancers faster.

Nicotine itself likely causes a whole slew of negative health impacts on your cardiovascular, respiratory, renal and reproductive symptoms. Not to mention it's highly addictive.

Worth a read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/

Or something protective that's declining.

I wonder what the rates of dietary fiber consumption look like over the last few decades.

Sold by: UBNYUKIBAL

Can someone explain the appeal of =small= nuclear reactors to me? Are the manufacturing cost savings the article cites really that much of a game changer?

I'd love to see us use more nuclear power. I would think =large= power plants would be more efficient though, and would save on things like personnel, security and regulatory costs.

I feel like the biggest risks to a nuclear power plant are the tiny chances for catastrophic failure -- terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis and human error.

Having 50x these plants seeded close to population centers seems like it would make it more difficult to protect against these risks. I would also imagine most projects would face NIMBY resistance, which would lead to lots of lawyer fees and lengthy permitting timelines if they even get off the ground. What am I missing?

That's interesting... I don't get any captchas.

Many countries in Europe have been in an economic malaise for some time now.

https://archive.ph/dqbDH

> The eurozone economy grew about 6% over the past 15 years, measured in dollars, compared with 82% for the U.S., according to International Monetary Fund data. That has left the average EU country poorer per head than every U.S. state except Idaho and Mississippi, according to a report this month by the European Centre for International Political Economy, a Brussels-based independent think tank. If the current trend continues, by 2035 the gap between economic output per capita in the U.S. and EU will be as large as that between Japan and Ecuador today, the report said.

> The European Union now accounts for about 18% of all global consumption spending, compared with 28% for America. Fifteen years ago, the EU and the U.S. each represented about a quarter of that total.

> Adjusted for inflation and purchasing power, wages have declined by about 3% since 2019 in Germany, by 3.5% in Italy and Spain and by 6% in Greece. Real wages in the U.S. have increased by about 6% over the same period, according to OECD data.

Right? Humanity comes up with some wild industries.

From the wiki it sounds like it is often also full of toxic metals:

> the fruiting bodies harvested in nature usually contain high amounts of arsenic and other heavy metals, so they are potentially toxic and sales have been strictly regulated by China's State Administration for Market Regulation since 2016.

Mine were:

- The New Yorker (subscription offer)

- Bon Appetit Magazine (subscription offer)

- Charles Tyrwhitt dress shirts

- An Online Masters in Data Science from Berkeley

- Travel to Switzerland

- Travel to Norway

That's about $3,000 a month, which is a little cheaper than an average apartment in Mountain View.

Does it actually use a blockchain? Interesting. I would have thought a centralized database would be more efficient. What benefit does a blockchain provide here?

To be clear, this isn't a cryptocurrency, right? It would be issued and backed by the Bank of England.

What is different about this and the current system? I assume the vast majority of pounds are held virtually in bank accounts already.

No, but it's my day job.

Market value and fair value aren't necessarily the same thing.

The 38% is just the one day premium. The offer was at a discount to the stock price less than six months earlier. It was possible that the stock price had overreacted to a tech sell off, and if the market had rebounded by the summer the bid could have looked genius.

Market pricing in M&A is somewhat opaque and different than trading prices because it's based partly on synergy value to a bidder. To use your house example, if the house next door was willing to pay $1.5 million for your house, then the $1.38M is not above market even if Zillow and the list price say it's $1 million.

There were other potential suitors for Twitter, like Microsoft, Disney, Salesforce and private equity. They might have valued it more than Musk based on the benefits it brought their firms. Twitter would be a lot more valuable inside Amazon, Google or Meta but there were probably antitrust issues there.

Plus Twitter's board and management team had access to a lot of material non public information that investors did not. Even if you thought the market price in early April accurately reflected all the public info on Twitter, the Board was looking at 5 year projections and much more detailed pricing/demand/customer info.

The Delaware Courts give a lot of deference to board judgment in these situations, and Twitter's board would have been well within their rights to say "no, that 38% is not good enough" if that was their conclusion after a good faith and reasonable process.

His offer was $54.20 in April 2022. That was a 38% premium to the market price immediately prior to his investment, which is attractive but not necessarily "always well above fair value"

Twitter had traded above that price as recently as five months earlier, and had traded in the $60s and even $70s for most of 2021. Twitter's stock had cratered in early 2022 along with many other tech stocks (Facebook went from $330 to $220 in that period).

At the time, the Board could have argued that the current stock price was artificially low due to market forces, and that it wasn't an accurate reflection of the company's prospects. That's especially true because Boards have access to non-public information and longer term forecasts.

When the board agreed to the merger, it signaled to investors that sophisticated insiders on the Board and their financial advisors did not believe the stock would be reasonably likely to reach the offer price in the near/medium term, on a risk adjusted basis, and thus the acquisition is superior. That's important intel for investors, and one of the reasons why failed mergers are so risky.

This has been driving me crazy, I thought I had accidentally broken something on my end.

Why would they do this?

I've heard that theory but it still doesn't quite make sense to me.

Investors know that book values are usually stale. They're rarely used as a primary justification for valuation except in industries where mark-to-market is common like financial institutions.

Real estate investors tend to focus on Net Operating Income, which a vacant property won't generate, and Net Asset Values, which are based on market values. Sophisticated investors and lenders aren't going to be fooled into investing in it based on some historical or hypothetical value. Cash flow is important.

If rental properties really were sitting vacant because managers were hoping to preserve book value through an accounting gimmick, I would think property manager that focused on actual cash generation yield would drive them out of business.

Is there no way to browse without signing in?

Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) are companies that the US federal government set up and sponsors in order to support the mortgage industry and provide liquidity to banks and other financial institutions that provide mortgages to Americans.

So if a bank offers a mortgage to a customer and the loan conforms with Fannie and Freddie's underwriting policies, Fannie and Freddie will buy it from them them. They then package some of those loans into a loan portfolio and sell it to fixed income investors.

About 70% of US mortgages are supported by Fannie and Freddie.

It's 62 million households, not people.

41% of households. And that's their conservative estimate.

> One statistic in particular stood out: one in 25 American five-year-olds today will not make it to their 40th birthday. No parent should ever have to bury their child, but in the US one set of parents from every kindergarten class most likely will.

Wow...