Lots of commentary from an unnamed White House source characterizing Anthropic as being "unserious," without further elaboration.
I want to point out that when the commentary by export-ban apologists devolves into talking about perceiving Anthropic as being "leftist," they're not having safety or even a technology-centric conversation anymore. They're making a baised political statement of intent about seeking domination and control over technology for capricious, arbitrary and self-interested reasons.
If you read a lot of books, particularly older ones, you'll find em dashes in all kinds of writing and used often. It's functional punctuation that once you understand you may even find yourself using it (and then being accused of being an AI, lol)
I used Claude and Gemini together to build a PowerShell script that makes them debate each other on any topic, for any number of rounds. Once it worked, I had them debate AI consciousness — then had them both analyze the debate afterward. One of them built this page to document it all
It's regarded as an inflation hedge but it seems more accurate to describe it as a measure of liquidity and liquidity expectations in capital markets now. Like a "Risk-on" gauge.
It has the best (and most reliable) integrated AI-based web experience. The Bing side bar can read what is in the open tab, etc. It's useful but it probably not worth the trade-offs
Feel like I've been waiting for a Chrome tablet since before Sundar was CEO. Then a few years later there was that expensive Pixel laptop. Now they're finally shipping this in 2023. I've always wondered what was holding back a launch of this.
Edit: I realize this is Android and not ChromeOS. I just can't believe they didn't ship a flagship tablet all this time.
The historical raison d'etre for the Federal Reserve act was principally point 3. Points 1 and 2 have become the central focus or modern Fed "mandate" and generally thought to be beneficent outcomes of a successful #3, besides. If the Fed inflicts too painful of a recession it fails at points 1 and 2, as well.
In theory, yes, but in practice market premiums are variable and greater than book values. It is true that dividend paying stocks fall somewhat on their ex-date. If they're undergoing capital appreciation too, that's generally made up for in short order.
I'm not saying to disregard dividends in terms of total return, either, only that Buffett wasn't talking about total return, so the "well, actually" I was responding to was just off the mark. If you or me were alive then and/or aware enough to watch the DJIA (classically in the 20th century, many American's measure of "the market" even if not technically the case) things really would have looked like they went nowhere (nominally) from the middle 60s until the early 80s.
He was comparing the point value of an index at two points to the /nominal/ dollar value of GDP at the same interval. That firms in the Dow in returned a lot of capital to shareholders in the form of dividends doesn't mean the market value of their equity increased any during the period. You're mixing capital returns with capital appreciation which isn't what he said at all. What he said was completely accurate. I think he knows what it was like to have lived and invested through the period.
The working poor pay into FICA which is a greater percentage of their cash flow. They get it back upon annual tax reconciliation. The same entitlement programs nonetheless have lots of unfunded liabilities so the money has already been allocated even if it's not currently "there" -- 'The Rich' are beneficiaries of entitlement spending too.
The Yard sale model in this post demonstrates that rich people are not necessarily better at allocating capital even if/as they accumulate and compound it faster.
The military is NOT where most spending goes - most spending goes to the entitlement programs: social security and Medicare.
There is another contingent of "many," who feel personally protective of Musk and like he needs to be vigorously defended no matter what. It's usually people who have no personal connection to him or his companies but idealize him as representative of something more than any single person is or can possibly be. Musk has flaws too which isn't a groundbreaking or wild thing to say but it makes a lot of people's heads explode. Why is that?
"An extreme shortage of good-quality collateral was why the GFC happened"
It started with a housing boom in America and housing is not generally poor quality collateral. More money was lent than could be repaid because of the way securitization was being done. Then a bunch of "safe" synthetic derivatives we're created off that bad debt too. The real estate collateral underneath it all was probably the only good thing (and part of the justification for the whole mess in the first place)
https://spinchange.github.io/memoirs-of-extraordinary-popula...