quantummagic

They are exactly comparable. The concept is exactly the same. We have borders and protected areas, and it is reasonable to make restrictions on other people based on those borders. It is not racist.

That's a completely separate issue (if it is one at all), but I was addressing the specific concerns in the OPs question.

Of course those are real issues that should be addressed. Just like if a factory producing bicycles is running all night and keeping you awake. But it's not something that should be concerning for anyone outside the area. It's not an existential crisis, just a local nuisance.

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or you genuinely believe what you're saying. I was the one saying that a border is a border, and you had better have a good explanation as to why the national border is fundamentally different from your home. If it's okay to protect your home, why is it WRONG to protect your country? See? I was putting the OP to the test: why is one just fine, but the other reprehensible? Instead, the OP responded with accusations of racism.

Misrepresenting the argument is not a good look. The argument is that everyone believes in borders. And that borders aren't racist. The only question is where we personally accept them being drawn. But NOBODY believes they're inherently all bad. Not even the people who pretend to do so, and are all too happy to throw around accusations of fascism and racism, to appeal to base emotion rather than logical and practical arguments.

Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.

> border fascism

I hope you keep to your principles and make sure not to lock your doors at night, and don't deny anyone the right to live in your house with you for free if they desire.

Why? An argument stands on its own, regardless of origin. If it's poorly written, by someone who is say a non-native speaker, it can still be a VALUABLE and VALID argument. It would be racist to dismiss an argument because it was poorly written by a non-native speaker. "Racism" against a computer is just as ignorant and petty.

If the argument is good enough, it worth ignoring who/what the author is.

You're right, this is the best it will ever be. But there likely will be ad blockers for them -- local LLMs that filter for any brand placement, etc.

The point is that to the extent it causes certain individuals to lose faith in humanity, or become reclusive, and as a result not reproduce -- it has the effect of altering the overall genetic makeup of subsequent generations. The net result being a population "adapted" to this new environment.

Does it take a human to have agency? Doesn't a cat have agency and desire? What about a worm? Where do you make the cut off, and why? If an AI is programmed with a bias towards creating and following "desires", how is it fundamentally different than what evolution installed in us?

We're way too human focused and dismissive of everything that isn't exactly like us.

> For example, I recently spent 2 weeks researching Bruce Lee ... [AI] output will just be a reiteration of already common knowledge instead of the actual efforts I made researching all of it.

Presumably you researched Bruce Lee by reading and consuming other media related to him, most of which is likely known by the AI models. They just don't have access to any novel idea that you generated, inspired by your research.

Regardless of their current inabilities, which you're correct about, there's no logical reason that in the long term they can't be similarly inspired by considering the same information and making new connections / conjectures just as you did.

We're making the same mistake that the people who dismissed the early airplane made. "That's a neat trick, but it's too limited and not robust enough to be very useful". Not considering how the technology would evolve from the Wright Brother's prototypes.

It sounds like people ruined them for you — it isn't AI calling you out for using them.

I'm no fan of the current administration, but this particular loss seems to be a failing of military strategy and leadership, not civilian ineptitude. It's not like the Whitehouse would have picked this staging area or directly controlled other logistics involved.

Seriously. The only way to use it is to be a very religious person. You have to pray every single time you use it that your system doesn't become compromised.

It could just be streaming the trailer.

I'm not missing it at all. Whatever the damn price is (of course it fluctuates) the only way you can make a bet that the price will go down further, is if someone else thinks it's going to go up. Therefore for every single short, WHATEVER THE PRICE, there's an exact same amount of optimism and pessimism. It's the only way a sale is made.

So you can focus on the pessimism if you want. But the point you're missing, is it's exactly offset by an equal amount of optimism (based on that price). One side is betting it will go down further, the other side is betting it will go up.

It turns out there's soon going to be a 20% to 30% increase in the number of stocks available to be traded, and people are betting that those holders will cash out now that they're vesting. So this is all more about market factors than intrinsic company fundamentals anyway.

But people want to always focus on the negative, and get too hung up on the fluctuations of a stock price like it's a message from God or something.

Anyway, it's been enjoyable talking with you and others, it seems we're not going to have a meeting of the minds on this one.

There is pleasure in completing things. In actually producing something, and moving on to the next thing. It isn't enjoyable to have paralysis by analysis... too afraid to take the next step, because you have less than perfect information. In the pathological case (since we never really have perfect information), there are people who never get anything done.

Pragmatically speaking, a half-assed answer now, is often better than a perfect answer tomorrow.

> What you're essentially saying is that "every gallon of milk is sold to a person". This is not useful information.

Only because you're ignoring the other option, that the gallon of milk DIDN'T sell. It tells you that there was demand for the milk you had to sell. If there was no customer, the milk would have spoiled. There are still people who want to drink milk. There are still people who believe you're not selling poison, that milk is a worthy thing to buy from you. That is useful information.

> And every (short) sale is proof that the market thinks it's a bad investment at that price, which logically nullifies your point.

No it doesn't. It's the flip side of the one you want to focus on, and all i've been saying is that it's not the ONLY side. If it nullifies my point, it also nullifies yours. They cancel EACH OTHER out.

> There isn't infinite liquidity at every price point.

Sure, but so what? That is true of literally every product sold. The price isn't zero, so there is enough liquidity to cover every short that was actually sold. You've already admitted to that. The fact that the price goes down, (and can sometimes move back up) is immaterial.

No, you're just working very hard to miss the point. Nobody can place the pessimistic bet, unless there is someone equally optimistic in the other direction. The fact that you're fixated on the price varying as each side attempts to do the best it can is just a commitment to a narrative, not a useful insight.

Here's the simple way to know you're wrong. The stock price isn't zero. That means there people willing (at some price) to put their money where their mouth is, that the people betting against the stock at that price are wrong.

But at that point they're both just making bets.. all it says is that there are an equal number of dollars willing to gamble at that price point. It says nothing about which side of the gamble will win.

Shorts don't exist in a vacuum. They literally can't be made, unless there was someone in the market who thinks that at the short price, the stock is a good investment opportunity. Every trade is proof that the market thinks the stock is a good investment at that price. I don't know why you have such a hard time facing up to that fact, even after you admit it is one.

People respond to market forces. When they see that there are other people making irrational valuations, they may wait to buy even lower. It's not a judgment about the intrinsic value of the stock at the current price, but of opportunities in the market.

It's still a hard fact that for every single trade, there is someone as fully optimistic, to perfectly match the pessimistic side. And people have to be pretty committed to a narrative to deny that fact.

Yes, stocks go up and down; hardly revelatory. The point, regardless of the imprecise wording of my alternate title, remains. There are people who think they are getting a valuable investment, at the price short-sellers are willing to sell at. There's just as much optimism as pessimism about the stock, at that price. And that's my complaint about the title, it wants to only highlight one side of the trade -- for narrative reasons.

I never intended to imply that the law of supply and demand was nullified. And I didn't say that the price was unaffected, just that there is as much money thinking they're getting a valuable long term investment, as there is as money shorting the stock. (By definition, since every sale is consensual, and of the opposite position)

It has nothing to do with the shares being borrowed. That's a separate transaction that comes with a fee. The point is that the share is then sold. It's sold to someone who is taking the long position. The original owner of the share, from whom it was borrowed, makes their money in fees, and by investing any security deposit given by the borrower. They are not taking a long or short position.

You're absolutely correct, and I should have been more precise. The value is always identical, but the number of participants, need not be the same for each position. Mea culpa.

That's exactly the point. The clickbait title wants you to forget that fact and draw an incorrect conclusion. It could have also been, "SPCX is the most purchased new stock", but that wouldn't have fed the desired narrative.

Regardless, you can't short anything without someone taking the opposite position. It's really independent of the overall downward trend.