Those conversations are an important part of the job. You can, for example, agree that something works in the sense that it is currently possible to use it to obtain a desired output, while simultaneously failing to work in various ways: It might fail to do so reliably, or it might only be able to do so at great cost.
In what sense? An investor seeks a return on their investment. The former achieves this. The latter spends money for pleasure. I suppose you could argue that they are an investor seeking non-monetary return, but in that sense everyone is equally an investor, just with different goals.
The article does state they were included, but is it "obviously" true that they should be? Who is more of an "investor", someone who purchases a primary residence to build equity or someone who purchases a second home to vacation in, spending large amounts of money to maintain it and allowing it to sit empty for long periods of time?
It seems rather disappointing if typical management would make such impactful decisions so rapidly that their "on paper" analysis couldn't be made clever enough to consider more than a single variable.
Yeah, I hear you. It definitely feels like there's been a shift toward investing based on sentiment rather than fundamentals, and there's certainly an argument to be made that's not a good outcome for society.
Personally I feel like it's a bigger issue for individual investors that in recent years companies now IPO only in later stages or not at all and that much of the more profitable bits of the growth curve are now accessible only to the private markets.
Most (all?) retirement plans offer you some amount of choice in funds to invest in, and most companies of the sort you're describing are not included in many of the more popular indices. For example, WeWork was never in the S&P 500. Similarly, target date funds are one of the more popular investments options available as by default and/or recommendation in retirement plans. The first one I checked (Fidelity's Freedom Index) applies its U.S. allocation to large caps, which again means it does not include many of the companies you have in mind.
Is the idea that the attacker is brute forcing the login method and they are less likely to be successful if the input must be passed in an unexpected format?
The premise is that the tax rate of millionaires is of interest as distinct from the tax rate of the typical person because millionaires are considered as having an above average amount of wealth, i.e. the topic at hand is how the wealthy are taxes relative to the less wealthy. If inflation moves typical amounts of wealth closer to millionaire levels, the analysis no longer provides the same level of insight into that topic.
You're correct about the square footage, but it would be incorrect to assume that because we were able to build X million units of size Y that we could have built 2X million units of size Y/2.
It is cheaper per square foot to build a larger house and many people like to live in big houses, so new construction has grown in footprint.
Many people value efficiency only when doing so is necessary for them to afford energy and maintenance costs.
What if someone has been betting frequently, but they've been winning so far? They'll be deemed "addicted" by this algorithm. Should they be?
How much will it cost to administer this program?
How confident are you that it will improve outcomes?
Why should I be required to share details of my finances in order to play?
Legal gambling has issues but I would definitely vote against your proposal. Keep regulations simple, either allow the activity or don't.
It's not worthwhile to try to duct tape over side effects with mitigation programs of questionable impact that will inevitably be expensive to administer, all while arbitrarily invading peoples' privacy.