> The creation (or even the pursuit) of novel mathematics is one way that humans have historically accessed the ineffable and encountered the divine and mystical.
Would a mathematician please unpack this for me? A theorem is the opposite of ineffable. A conjecture may be ineffable but its pursuit reifies it. I am missing something.
Which hand dominant are you? My guess is you're a lefty so being offhanded with coffee in the right, which you don't have to look at, is no biggie.
Righties tend to fiddle (not shift) with the shifter or have the right hand on the wheel most of the time. Texting offhanded with the left is miserable.
The truly dedicated can drive one-kneed, heel-toe, drink coffee, and text simultaneously. But manual definitely makes texting more obviously stupid by requiring intermittent use of the second hand.
Except that original sin thing is pure Genesis. It's what introduces the entire need for salvation throughout all Nicene Christianity.
The Gnostic Christians who rejected the Old Testament entirety had to insert some other reason to require Christ. My favorite mechanism is how Marcion handled it, purely because his was more interesting than "everyone starts broken."
But yes, generally Catholics are not sola scriptura while most Protestants are.
The Manual Gearbox Preservation Society (https://tmgps.org/) is a notable counterexample.
I look forward to teaching my kids to drive stick. Stick makes driving more engaging then automatic's point-and-go. Engagement breeds attentivity. Texting while driving stick is obviously decreased because both hands are actively required to drive. None of their friends will be able to drive my manual car. I don't know why anyone would hand their kid the keys to an automatic given its downsides.
I want someone to start a monthly subscription service that mails HEB tortillas within the continental US using UT Austin students as the smurfs. The ad copy writes itself.
Loved that Ranger my father owned. Rolled it onto the driver's side, totalling it. Still have road rash on my left forearm from when the window broke mid-accident and my left arm dragged a touch.
Suppose we did exactly what you suggest, preventing amassing incredible wealth.
The only substitute for wealth is power and for power is wealth (with a hefty conversion fee). Amassing power would be the alternative action taken by the driven billionaire types if you take away the possibility of amassing wealth.
A bunch of stymied billionaires amassing power leads us back to pre-nationalized Europe.
At least when people amass wealth, they generally do something valuable for others.
You might enjoy reading the concept of the demiurge [1]: A lesser creating-but-not-creator deity than the ultimate benevolent god, usually portrayed as something of a deceptive character. Great rabbit hole to go down.
Now, add in the pre-tax earnings that would be necessary to emulate a teacher's risk-free pension. One would need post-tax investments which must be turned into an annuity on retirement. It's not a small sum.
You can. A bunch of companies offer SMAs like this. It's a retail product, usually labeled as some smart tax loss harvesting atop the indices where you can denylist particular stocks.
> But doing so would be a fair amount (by index standards) of overhead and hassle.
Any product provider, like Blackrock, would jump at the opportunity to sell them an S&P499 given the scale of those pension funds.
> Plus they'd put themselves in the crosshairs of a whole range of activists...
Not to mention putting their own jobs on the line if SpaceX outperformed the rest of the index.
The first point, that an S&P499 is easy for them but they won't do it, means they have no conviction. The second point (where I agree with you), that it's obvious we-tried CYA lacking any real teeth that'll go nowhere, means they have no courage.
They're an asset manager: put your money where your mouth is. If their hypothesis is that SpaceX governance will be bad then short the bloody thing and use the proceeds to buy the S&P499. It's not a complicated trade given their industry position and ability to call third-party providers.
> The New York and California pension systems would become holders of SpaceX shares through their passive allocations if the company is admitted to major U.S. stock indexes.
If they have discretion, these pensions can replicate the S&P500 minus SpaceX if they don't like SpaceX's governance.
If they're forced to passively hold precisely the S&P500 then shaddup and stop active managing.