Also, I would be a lot more pessimistic of the index tracking fund managers’ ability or willingness to find extra shares: their goal is to match the index, not beat it. If the index includes the new firm at a blown-up price because everyone sent their buy orders at the same closing auction, then all the index-tracking funds still track their underlying index. They do not care that after that closing auction, the price of the new firm—and likely the index itself—is going to drop.
One thing is fiduciary duty to the shareholders, another is “pleasing the shareholders” as you describe it. Pleasing the shareholders is necessary only when displeasing them means they will sell the stock when there is no buyer. If there is a buyer, the current shareholders are less relevant — as long as management cannot be accused of not fulfilling their fiduciary duty to them.
I may be wrong, but I believe spending time in a deeper gravitational well means you observe everything outside of the well to be happening much faster; at the singularity, the entire future of the parent universe will appear to you as happening all at once. There is no notion of “matter that falls in later” — once you reach the singularity, you travel to the end of time in the parent universe. And the passage of time in our universe isn’t a continuation of time in the parent universe; it’s not even the same dimension, the latter is collapsed.
How much do we know about military AI’s capabilities? As in, is there any evidence that the government/military was ahead of big tech on the AI research front?
Presumably, the energy output from a fusion plant (if we ever get there) should be self-sustaining. For starting up, I’m guessing the plant can draw power from the grid itself, no?
I imagine that tracking an asteroid and continuously pointing the laser array at a specific portion of it, will be harder than tracking a shiny light sail that’s continuously illuminated by the laser array—but as a whole, I think shooting a laser at an asteroid is one of our best bets, so having that array would be a good tool of planetary defense
And just a clarification that some (many) ETFs also distribute dividends on a quarterly basis as they accrue them from their holdings, so technically you want to be looking at the total return indices.
Edit (sorry, I don't think I can edit my own comment at this point): I think I was missing the point. Storing user data for 3 years after verification seems unnecessary for the user. So yes, it does sound like some data-mongering f*ckery is going to happen/is happening.
I never wanted Equifax to have any of my data, and yet here we are. After the breach, I wouldn’t ever be a paying customer to them if I had a choice. (Indirectly, I am still a “customer” in the sense that they probably still have my data and get new data about me—but apart from canceling all my cards, not sure what choice I have). In comparison, Stripe seems to charge for each product it offers. I think that’s a more fair and transparent model.
This is cool, in a somewhat masochistic sense. Some of us do this kind of mental math all day long. But here’s a proposal on how to extend this.
Background/motivation: Many people think about that one btc purchase they almost made, but never did, and they do the math of what would happen if they just held until present day. But in reality, most of these people would have had “paper hands” and generally reduced their positions along the way.
So with some modifications, your code could answer the question of “what if I allocated X% of my portfolio to BTC and rebalanced to target that allocation every Y months?” Which, I think, would be a more reasonable approximation of people’s wealth trajectory, if they had bought in a certain point in time. (If you want to make this even fancier, you can account for the fact that after the first 1-10M, you can start swinging for the fences and leave higher allocation to crypto)
Every night at midnight, I have a script that sends me a blank email with a smiley face as subject. It’s a nice way to very quickly distinguish emails from today, yesterday etc. and also to stunt my prior that every email I get is going to be stressful.
Also, I would be a lot more pessimistic of the index tracking fund managers’ ability or willingness to find extra shares: their goal is to match the index, not beat it. If the index includes the new firm at a blown-up price because everyone sent their buy orders at the same closing auction, then all the index-tracking funds still track their underlying index. They do not care that after that closing auction, the price of the new firm—and likely the index itself—is going to drop.