asdasdsddd

I always see this "excuse". Our fund isn't focused on alpha; we minimize beta. It's just unclear to me whether this is shown out in the data.

1. Crazy graph format lol

2. I thought management fees were supposed to pay for comp?

3. Buying SPY wins again?

4. I don't really care about rich people getting ripped off, but I wonder if any of my money leaks into these funds

The secret is buying a bidet so you dont need to buy from either ever again!

It's a 500B company that undercuts everyone else with incredible efficiency, just like Amazon. It's an example of how capitalism can be great. If you really want to get of out of capitalism, you can just buy directly from farmers or grow your own food.

The whole thing about no ethical consumption under capitalism is a just a way to enjoy the conveniences of capitalism on a moral high ground. It's totally doable, you just might not enjoy it haha.

This has to be a meme. Costco is peak hypercapitalism lol.

This has to be the least interesting paper I've ever read with the most surface level thinking.

> • Simple→Tool Call: Inaccuracy propagated to inappropriate tool selection.

> • Multi-step: Cascading errors compound risk of inaccurate or irrelevant outcomes.

> • Fully Autonomous: Unbounded inaccuracies may create outcomes wholly unaligned with human goals.

Just... lol

Holy shit, what a scam...

Perpetual stew feels like a gimmick but stew does taste better on day 2 and 3 for sure.

> Having a population of burma(a historically very active conflict area) that is well educated and more likely to oppose the military Junta

Ok so you haven't told me how this furthers Americans interests, that's pretty much every BS power projection argument I've heard for my entire life.

> When I ask why is America building anti-missile batteries and stationing their troops in my country,

Depending on your country, I'm ok with removing the batteries :)

I'm pretty open minded so if you have a detailed answer, I would love to hear it. Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of hand wavy answers around like "stabilizing" or "soft power" because I feel like vague language masquerades corruption and misuse of funds. What I want to know are the direct causal links between our money and our interests.

> because it's explicitly in American interests to do so

Please elaborate, and be precise because every interventionist argument is like, "but our trading partners, but our allies" but always fails to link exactly how that improves the lives of Americans. So tell me exactly what we are afraid of. If its trade tell me exactly what the comparative advantage is or what the resource we need is. And if its defense, tell me exactly what the threat vectors are, not just, "the island chains".

We've doing truly stupid things in the name of bullshit concepts like "containment" which led us into Vietnam, or "stabilizing the region" which led us into the middle east.

We can start with the Burmese scholarships that gives 300k per student; please tell me exactly what the American interests are.

> so that US is less likely to engage militarily with whatever conflict happens in those coutries eventually

Or you know, we can stop getting into wars? Did our adventures in the middle east advance US interests?

> It's part of being a global hagemony

It's called overextension and almost every historical power declined due to internal rot coupled by continuously getting into conflicts, which, wouldn't you know, drained the treasury.

Do you think inequality has risen or decreased as the size of the government increased? Regulatory capture can only exist with the existence of unchecked regulatory power. I personally work in a space that is insanely difficult to new entrants because of the thousands of regulations you need to comply to (90% are garbage btw). If tmrw, our industry had a regulation reform, the entrenched players would die overnight.

Because those agencies are funded by the federal budget. We are literally going into a deficit to send money to other countries. Do you realize how insane that is? And don't tell me this is just a small part of the federal budget. Oh its just a couple billion here and there. That's a lot of money that could go towards not being in debt. This level of fiscal irresponsibility is basically taxation without representation on the unborn.

What power has he gained.

So you are saying if the founding fathers had 100 agencies then slavery wouldve been abolished?

Yes and FDR also skirted around constitutionality and even threatened to pack the courts to ram his reforms in. I don't agree with everything the president is doing, but the rail we are going down is just doomed. What is your proposition to stop interest from eating 100% of the federal budget. We just paid 1T of interest, do you think that is going to decelerate?

Yes and we managed to do that for 150 years with a fraction of the current government size.

The president is fascist because he's, checks notes... , relinquishing governmental power by shutting down agencies? I think the only thing people have been habituated to is the enormity of the government; go back to any other point in history, was the government this big in terms of independent agencies, employee/contractor count, budget/debt as percentage of gdp?

Sure the spoils system was bad, but the current iteration where you have hundreds of independent agencies that cannot be fired breathing down your neck with statutory power is fucking insane.

This is also the attitude that makes every dumbass think they are above the law.

That makes no sense, the integral of the tax credit is always the total value of the asset so it doesn't matter unless there are relevant tax brackets here? Businesses can also carryforward losses right?

This is a boomer take. Technology in music has evolved over time and people continue to enjoy old and new music nonetheless, whether it's created from samples on a computer or performed live at a bar, despite the fact that people decry every generation that the next generation's music is not real music.

The angry people in the comments aren't from delaware.

Seems like a lot of Californians are feeling insecure about this kind of news. Maybe its time to re-evaluate why this is happening instead of lashing out. California is a beautiful state with great weather, it has some of the most important trade and transit hubs in the west, and a robust education system. There's no reason we can't turn this around, almost all of our issues are governance related problems.

Maybe because it doesn't take 20 years to get a permit to build a treehouse. [0]

[0]: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/austin-ten-times-housin...

The thing where food sits and ferments in your stomach is insane.

All of these surveys are pointless, all that matters is do they use it or not when they have a choice, and the answer seems like a resounding no.

It's not even that there are pyschos, it's that incentives wane with scale because individuals have less control over outcomes.

This has been talked about endlessly so why don't we skip to the conclusion. To avoid the problem of gaming metrics you either need to

1. Spend a lot of time and thought into developing ungameable(whether this is possible is unclear) metrics and ways to measure these metrics.

2. Admit defeat and not be transparent with evaluations and/or go off of vibes.

Just to be pedantic, spaceX predates tesla