I checked sources, turns out literally tens of millions of people vocally and loudly disagree with you.
I think it's not helpful to anyone to come in here and be so resolute and so black and white. Especially in the face of an event that has drawn the eye of the international community as a potential genocide.
I'm not telling you what to believe, just that like, posting like you did is not engaging in any meaningful discussion.
Makes total sense in hindsight, here's hoping this gets confirmed. It's also just generally a good way for young kids to develop. Kids learn a ton by figuring out "can I climb this log?"
If you are considering investing tens of billions into infrastructure for manufacturing in a country, it seems like a business risk to choose a country that is currently facing genocide charges in the ICC and UN.
And before you brigade me, I'm making no comments about the validity of those charges either way. I'm saying it's an obvious increased risk as an investor. It's possible that Israel becomes subject to sanctions or subject to increased international scrutiny or gets embroiled in regional conflict.
Those seem like business risks that might change the calculus.
What's challenging for you about these numbers? Your original response included mortgages in saving, which is atypical. If you exclude mortgages, which is typical, do the numbers make more sense?
> It is not like you are going to go in like a horribly confused idiot and randomly redefine tillage or something.
Try to remain on topic and avoid ad hominem, please.
> There is nothing about savings that implies they must be liquid.
Here are several examples that disagree. Yes, in a strict Keynesian economic sense it is saving but saving is different from savings, despite the similarity in the two words. (Yes, you are right, this is confusing.)
"In terms of personal finance, saving generally specifies low-risk preservation of money, as in a deposit account, versus investment, wherein risk is a lot higher."
> Which means that when a home is not underwater, the owner has savings (or breaking even, of course, but that is as equally unlikely and is for all intents and purposes considered to be the same as underwater).
What? It doesn't mean this at all. You can have savings and still be underwater. If you have a 3.5% for your mortgage, but the market crashes after you bought at the peak, you can be underwater because your house lost value. And it would be foolish to pay down the loan rather than get a better rate for your savings.
Underwater mortgages are totally orthogonal concepts to savings.
> if you are paying a mortgage, a portion of that is a portion you are saving
I think I see your confusion. Yes, money saved into a home is an asset that you are building over time. However it's a non liquid asset, it's difficult to turn back into cash for, e.g., a surprise medical bill.
Repayment of a loan meets the strict mathematical definition of "savings" however it is typically excluded (as are, e.g., investments). For instance, the U.S. calculation of GDP does not consider repayment to be saving.
Savings are typically held in checking accounts, savings accounts, CDs, and money market accounts. Some people take a portion of their savings and invest them in higher risk items like stocks and bonds, but those are investments.
It's important to decouple the concepts of net worth (or even just worth) from the concept of "savings" because you can be taking actions that increase net worth (e.g. paying a mortgage) that don't increase one's savings. (Though, eventually, if you sell the home you could put any proceeds into savings.)
Being underwater on a mortgage and not being able to save aren't the same.
A mortgage that is underwater means the value of the home is less than the loan balance. That can happen for any number of reasons.
It doesn't mean anything about your ability to save money. If you make $5k a month and spend $5k on expenses, you can make all your mortgage payments (whether or not that mortgage is underwater) but still not save.
When outlets report savings of Americans they don't typically mean just in savings accounts.
They didn't even cover the chemical composition and harsh structure of the regolith, which makes converting it to soil impossibly difficult and probably a good source of novel lung diseases. Or the low gravity resulting in issues for long term habitants. Or the length of the Martian day being annoyingly close to but not exactly 24 hours which will fuck up some rhythms. Or the general mineral paucity. Or the distance. Or or or.
Mars is incredibly cool as a science fiction destination, but I'd much rather see us target near earth asteroids as space habitats first.
I appreciate this. Suggesting that mental health is "just" a chemical imbalance is maybe addressing a very complicated system with a narrow fix.
That said, I'm likely biased to be predisposed to believe that mental health is a complex system based on other beliefs I hold or experiences I have (e.g. having suffered depression myself, having experienced homelessness, believing in the theory of alienation.)
But also, I don't know what you do to address systems that doesn't require radical or even revolutionary change. We're a far cry from even applying the mental health practices we do have to everyone who wants them today. To say nothing of the massive social stigmas associated with therapy, depression, and medications.
They have on label use as weight loss medicine. It might be discovered first as a side effect, but it's genuinely considered a primary desirable effect these days.
You keep saying it's my confusion. My friend, there is no lazy speaker. It is merely the accepted and understood use of the term in casual conversation.
I understand your semantic argument, there is no confusion, I simply believe language is not prescriptivist. If people use the words in a certain way, then that is an acceptable way to use the words. No argument from a position of "well actually, the dictionary/professional jargon says..." will sway me because I just don't care.
This post mortem is sort of classically underdone. It describes a step that was taken that was in the path of the error, but is not the root cause. The root cause here is not "we copy pasted from chat gpt and it hallucinates", but rather a "our systems allowed this failure to get to production". Which in turn should be met with why? Because we didn't have tests or qa that covers this path. Why?
Keep. Asking. Why.
ChatGPT didn't fail, your system allowed ChatGPT to fail. Answering why is the interesting thing to discuss and blog about.