evancox100

Can't read the full article but the headline seems to say that the fed is hoping for wage increases to slow, but that would be because they have tightened monetary policy. That's different from the fed chair getting up and saying "Workers, please ask your boss to pay you less so we can fight inflation."

Note that the main transmission mechanism of monetary policy in fighting inflation is basically putting people out of work, to the extent of provoking a recession if need be. So yes the fed is looking for some pain in the labor market to see that things are working, though they would love for inflation to come down without a recession too.

But high inflation is also bad for workers, because wages in general don't keep up in real terms (re-negotiated infrequently, leverage imbalance between company and worker, status quo bias, etc.). The higher inflation is the larger you can expect companies profit shares to be (case in point, the original article). Also really high inflation seems bad in general for the economy, both workers and companies.

What government is arguing that employee wages should be lower/stagnant in order to fight inflation?

EDIT: I mean advocating not just that we should avoid a wage/price spiral through other means, but specifically that individual workers should accept/volunteer for lower wages than they could otherwise get?

Edit 2: seeing several cases of "$Reserve_Bank_Person says wage increases are too high and need to come down", not a lot of "Please turn down your pay increase so we can fight inflation." The reason no one would actually say the second is it is a ridiculous collective action problem that is obviously unsolvable on the employee side. The Australia governor warned against a 5.75% pay raise for govt employees (I think), but he was addressing the employer in that case, not individual workers.

No, it does not feel like that to me as far as grocery stores are concerned. (My experience is in large Texas cities.)

Do you not just have some store like Tom Thumb, Randall’s, Albertsons, Krogers, Sprouts, or H‑E‑B near you? I know there are places that don’t have good access to regular grocery stores, wondering if that’s the case for you or for some reason you see these as either too junky or too high end?

For sure there are more self checkout lanes, but it’s usually not too hard to find a regular staffed lane if that’s what you want.

Dollar General didn’t move down market, they moved up. Still plenty of regular grocery stores around, at least here.

And who abandons the middle part of the market? The providers? The customers?

Not really making sense here but I get it if you’re just venting or whatever.

The crash could still happen one day after you put the last dollar in. If you can’t handle such a crash, you need to invest less in stock all the time, not just for a few weeks/months after receiving a windfall.

The post defines that as “Systematic Investing”, while DCA is defined as taking a larger amount (e.g. a windfall of $10k) and deploying it over time instead of all at once.

You can have your own definitions but this is clearly explained in the post.

I could be wrong, but I took that to mean the tweet thread was written not to leak anything that wasn’t already publicly available in the patents. Not that the patents were written to not disclose anything.

In which case patent regime is working exactly as intended and promoting dissemination of ideas while still providing the (time limited) economic advantages to the inventor.

I think embedded programming could really benefit from async/co-routine programming, especially around interrupt routines. I’d like to be able to write an ISR function that looks like straight line code. It would enabled and awaits the interrupt, then returns back to that point once the interrupt is active, restoring the local function state.

1) Excess savings built up during COVID (part stimulus money, part reduced spending on travel, etc.)

2) "Hot" economy with low unemployment

Why do you assume that setting a high price or raising prices is "abusing customers"? If customers are paying that price, what's the problem? Are the customers idiots who can't be trusted how to allocate their money?

High prices is only "abuse" if there is a monopoly on that good and there is no substitute. Which, yes that is bad, we should stop it. BUT even a true monopoly doesn't explain a generalized increase in prices where consumers do not react to higher prices on A by reducing spending on B.

Edit: Of course there is variance in the degree to which owners will pursue profit maximization, up to and including "I am already rich and I will operate this at a loss for the good of the public", but the median (or even 75th percentile) firm I don't think is at "pass all cost savings onto customers even if I'm leaving money on the table."

The "inflation allows companies to hike prices" theory is circular reasoning, because inflation IS companies hiking prices in mass and not suffering a sales losses sufficient to dissuade them form doing so.

It's absolutely true that in an inflationary environment companies hike prices preemptively. That is the phenomenon known as inflation. Missing from similar theories is any explanation of why this happens sometimes and not others.

Maybe this intervention wasn’t seen as “extreme” at the time?

I respect that there are many people doing their best to help their clients, without regards to the short run impact to their pocket book. (Obviously there is a long run benefit to keeping clients happy, etc, etc.) It is not hard to find examples online of buyers agents being told to ignore sub-3% listings, and the universal advice for people doing FSBO or flat fee listings is to still offer 3% tot he buyer.

I think it would be better if the system didn't have this conflict of interest in the first place. It sounds like your market is there already, I expect the rest of the country to eventually follow even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming. (See Moerhl, Sitzer/Burnett)

On the positive side for agents, currently the best and worst buyer's agents are forced to charge essentially the same price. Breaking up the current model would in theory allow some differentiation. The best agents can offer more services that buyer's may want. Experienced buyers who need less help can go to an agent who charges less, etc.

People focus on this but the far bigger lever is simply time. If it takes 2/3 the effort to get you into the $700k home then the agent comes out ahead on a revenue/hour basis, and can move on to the next customer.

(And the much bigger conflict is for properties with a no or reduced buyer’s agent commission.)

This entire fiasco is stupid.

Treasury bonds/bills are just “future dollars”, while physical cash and electronic deposits are just “today dollars”. The idea that a sovereign government can somehow default on obligations denominated in the currency it creates and controls is absurd. It can no more default on treasury bills than it can default on dollars, or accounts at Fed - either can be created at will, physically via printing press/mint OR electronically via crediting an account at the fed.

The “debt outstanding” is just the number of dollars the government has created. But the way we calculate this number doesn’t include ”today dollars” the government has printed, only “future dollars”, so it seems quite meaningless to fixate on it.

And it is not per se irresponsible for this number to be high. It only becomes irresponsible if there are negative effects on the broader economy, primarily via inflation but also other effects like crowding out private investment and reducing growth.

Right now we are in an overly inflationary environment right now, and the government should be printing fewer dollars (“austerity”) via lower spending, higher taxes. It would be reasonable to insist on changes to spending/taxation policy.

It is irresponsible to take money (today or future-dated) and imply the government may no longer honor it as money. You are destroying the public’s faith in money, and losing the ability to buy goods and services with it. This is why many countries can’t get others to accept their money as payment, and have to issue bonds in a currency they DON’T control. This is not a good situation to be in.

People take the intuition that it is irresponsible for a household to have too much debt because it might not be able to repay it, and apply that to the government which can create those dollars. It is not the same.

It is like saying Starbucks can default on “Starbucks points” that it owes to people. So long as Starbucks exists, it can hand out however many Starbucks Points it likes, because it decides what a Starbucks point is and maintains the records of who has how many points. There might be Starbucks Points inflation if they hand out too many, but it is always possible for them to meet Starbucks Point obligations.

Good luck with that argument!

"Your honor, I wasn't copying that movie. You see, I applied a mathematical formula to the .zip file, and it just happened to produce the movie as output. Coincidence!"

(That's not to say the key is copyrightable, it's not. I think the relevant law would be the DMCA anti-circumvention provision.)

(I vouched for this post because I think it's important to actually address these issue head on with facts and not just shout people down.)

Berenson's numbers based on the presentation you shared seem to check out, but the interpretation seems odd.

Just looking at how many cases were averted doesn't tell you what types of tail risks were averted. It may be a worthwhile trade off to have 10x as many "severe side effects" in exchange for having many many fewer severe, debilitating, or fatal infections.

Also, Berenson is looking at the ratio of severe side effects induced to RSV cases prevented. But the vaccine side effects only happen once, at the time of injection, while the vaccine may continue to confer long term benefits. So this ratio is highly dependent on the time period in question.

Ya but the uninsured depositors were still bailed out, so I think it's a little more complicated than that.

The FDIC insurance fund is predicated on any one bank (and their customers) being small enough that if you wipe out the uninsured deposits, the system as a whole will be ok. That was arguably not the case, or at least regulators didn't want to take that risk for SVB or Signature.

I mean the more fundamental problem with the power supply is it recommending a "USB-to-Serial converter for powering the device." (See second example image.)

I'm overall bullish on AI systems but I'm not sure this space has enough detailed context to train. Much if this knowledgeis in-house/proprietary. We'll see how fast these are able to improve over time.

I think the high end stuff was always expensive. Why do you think furniture was passed down from generation to generation? It’s just that globalization and technology have made the low end so cheap, that by comparison it feels like the high end stuff is too expensive. But that is just your preference for lower cost, good enough items coming through!

(This take not backed up by any data, just my opinion.)

> The merchant only gets the "6+4" digits of the card, the DPAN is sent over the network to the tokenization service, which translates the DPAN to the CPAN and sends the transaction to the issuing bank for authentication and payment.

> The lack of being able to get the "real" CPAN is why some US merchants still refuse Apple/Google/Samsung Pay, specifically because they lose the ability to track customers.

Looking at you, HEB

The current headline, “The Better Your Credit Score the Higher Your Mortgage Rate” is not true. The LLPA (Loan Level Price Adjustment, the amount Fannie Mae charges essentially) decreases monotonically with increasing credit score. So higher credit score borrowers will still pay less than lower credit score borrowers.

From [1]: "'Overall, lower-credit buyers will still pay more in LLPA fees than high-credit buyers – but the latest changes will close the gap,' notes the Post."

What they have done is significantly lowered the spread between high- and low-credit score borrower, by increasing the fee charged to the former and decreasing the fee charged to the latter.

[1] https://reason.com/2023/04/21/borrowers-with-high-credit-sco...

Because the employees are shareholders? If the profits are going to shareholders then employees are directly benefiting

Analog circuits are ones that primarily deal with the processing and manipulation of analog signals, while digital circuits are those that primarily deal with digital signals. Refer to my prior reply for the difference between analog and digital signals.

A clock is not necessary in this definition. For example a simple logic AND gate is digital and has no clock. The input is not captured or latched before being modified; nevertheless it is a digital circuit.

Employment-population ratio is probably the one hardest to game, and it is not slowing down at all. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

By definition, an analog signal encodes an “infinite” amount of information in whatever value it is taking on at the time point in question, while a digital signal encodes information in discrete states. For binary that is typically two states, but sometimes you can divide things finer, like multilevel flash cells or PAM4 signaling.

Digital the values “round-to-nearest”, so if supply is 1 V, then 0.6 V, 0.9 V, and 1 V all mean logical 1. Whereas for analog those different values mean different things.

Also, for digital you want to push the signals to the extremes so they are easier to read, while for analog that would be destroying information, you want to preserve the value.

(In practice there are fundamental limits to how much useful information you get out of analog signals due to noise.)

There is a real difference between an analog and digital multiplexer regardless of speed. For an analog mux, whatever voltage you put in you get out, including mid-rail voltages. For a digital mux, any input < VDD/2 causes an output of 0 V, and any input > VDD/2 causes an output of VDD volts.

You can use an analog mux on digital signals, but it probably won’t be as good as a digital one. However, you can’t use a digital mux to switch analog signals, it won’t work.

Edit: the one exception to this is for bidirectional digital signals you may want to use an analog mux, since you don’t know which side may be driving the lines. This would apply to DRAM since the data lines are bidirectional, so probably using an analog mux.

Seems like a way to directly sense the prescence of electromagnetic fields without first confining them to a wire with an antenna.

Practically speaking, I guess antennas are shaped to work best in a specific range, so now you don’t need multiple antennas? Also there are some cases where just the presence of an antenna would be counterproductive, or simply infeasible, for instance measuring electric fields in a waveguide. Here are some examples from another article:

> Furthermore, the use of small vapor cells allows spatially-localized observations of electric field strengths such as, for example, at points within a microwave wave guide without perturbing the local field as would introduction of an antenna. Rydberg atom measurements can also be directly related to known physical constants and can therefore provide accurate absolute electric field values that can be used to calibrate more conventional antenna-receiver combinations.

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/rydberg-atoms-quantum-e...

No, in classic HBM multiple RAM dies are stacked on top of each other, but they sit next to the CPU, not on top. Edit: well typically it would be a GPU not a CPU.

The part that’s inaccurate is calling it a 128-bit data path. It’s not, it’s just a higher speed 64-bit path