chunky1994

Holding a PhD at the very least means you can spend a sustained long amount of time on (potentially) intractable problems and try to arrive at solutions for them. That's a good skill to have when...you've been elected to solve problems.

There are two largely non-overlapping skillsets when it comes to politics and governance. The soft skills being effective means you can get elected, that does not mean they are good at governing (and is often a detriment to having good solutions and governance).

I don't currently have any data that says otherwise and the counterfactual remains unexplored (but it will be with this parliament!), but things that people do and say to get elected often are things that if implemented...would not solve the problems the populace that elected is having.

I don't think we need schmoozers, we need people who understand the problems of their populace and have the structural power to implement their solutions. We shall see if they need more than this, but this would be the first exploration of the counterfactual.

People who have their "own" priorities don't end up upsetting the apple cart when we make success in implementing those solutions the same as their success (which if we are effective problem solvers, should be possible. See Deng Xiaoping)

They yanked the openVSX version as well. Until we hear from Anthropic better to assume compromise.

It affects their VSCode marketplace extension which in turn affects their cursor extension. Their official published version. This is plenty of reason to panic.

Do you have a source that these low income Americans are the ones who are ordering food? My understanding was this was largely people with additional disposable income who were doing it for convenience and not necessity as the product for the price was a good enough trade off. I find it hard to believe low income Americans are getting their groceries delivered when they can’t afford the base prices for the most part.

(numbers are just to illustrate a point, not accurate) Now assume you can't buy a 5lb bag of potatoes and you can only buy 10,000 lb bag. Now also assume that you can't buy this 10,000 lb bag unless you know someone else will pay for fries for the other 9,995 lb because you can't eat that many fries. That's the kind of scale the token inference market is efficient at.

People thought the same thing about nuclear proliferation. Turns out we can do hard things if we make the effort as a populace. I’m all for being a realist but 1984 is not inevitable, it’s just very difficult to prevent.

How are they fleecing anybody if their rating is junk?

They can lobby all they want but until we see ratings agencies bending to their lobbying in the face of extreme scrutiny from anyone who would buy these corporate bonds I wouldn't go about worrying too much.

No, to be more specific, banks selling the collateralized mortgages that were subprime in risk as if they were prime and these risk ratings being accepted at their word and via collusion with the ratings agencies is what caused this.

There is no issue with collateralized debt as long as the risk is properly assessed, the whole point of securitization is that you can take on higher risk for higher reward of an asset that was previously just one single piece of risk.

Variable rate (loans) track the Fed rate. Fixed rate (loans) track the long term treasury yields.

Because any addictive thing is on a spectrum and you don't want the people with incentives to go all the way up the spectrum to be the operator of the harmful thing, a là the dose makes the poison. (See alcohol, cigarettes, any class of drugs etc.)

Some things are just wholly harmful where no small amount provides any benefits, some are harmful in large doses, but not so harmful in small doses that they cannot provide other uses.

Governments (ideally) don't exist to maximize profit so they are (generally) not incentivized to increase the addictions of their populace.

In what sense?

By and large it is independent of the whims of the administration because of its goals (specific inflation and unemployment targets) being more or less contraindicative to what administrations want to do (spend money)