maga_2020

>If one accepts that the talent gene is randomly sprinkled around the planet, it seems obvious that the region where the majority of humans exist should be the epicenter of dynamism. It was true in the pre-industrialized world, with China, along with India, being the giants. ... . As Asia adopts best practices in modern ideas, institutions, and technologies, the historical norm should be reinstated in the global order.

Are these statements a hypothesis or a scientifically accepted truth?

a) that the talent has a gene

b) that the epicenter of dynamism is where the people with the talent gene are

c) that the gene is randomly sparked and is equally distributed

d) that the epicenter of dynamism is the same as the epicenter of economic prosperity (or am I assuming what is meant by dynamism)

I also agree with your sentiment. Excel is coding for people who are not programmers.

But I think the author conflates 1) engineering practices

2) Programming

3) Expressing domain knowledge using tables, charts and numbers

Most excel users do 3) They are certainly not programmers, and the do not follow engineering practices we associated with programming: modularity, hiearchical or functional re-usability, testability, etc

Excel creators do not reproduce bug reports, do not measure their success by the number of bugs they fixed, they do not do SDLC...

These are not particularly fault of excel. But as soon as there is a recognition that 'oh that excel workbook needs to be managed by programmers' -- then after a few month programmers realize that Excel and VBA macros are subpar programming environment, and will just argue that the way that the author does -- that it does not make sense to maintain a complex, business critical code within Excel.

So they will re-write it in Python or something else.

---

I think Ex cell's success in the business world is precisely because it allows non-programmers to bypass the whole SDLC and express their domain knowledge in a computational system.

As programmers, we want to replace Excel with something that

a) allows business users to do what they want to do, without SDLC

b) when their work reaches a certain level of complexity, we want the tool to allow us to gradually transition the work the domain users have done into an engineered piece of software with minimal effort, free of cost, easy to debug.

I do not think such as system exists yet, but that would be a killer app

original poster here.

I read this site as a 'permabear' for financial news. A contrarian. Meaning that they help to filter out what's bushtit in a bullish sentiment. But I would not use them to guide me for what to invest into -- as according to them, anything but gold or silver, is a 'so so'.

I think they apply this 'permabear' lens onto the main-stream anything, especially mainstream advisory.

So that's the context.

With regards to the specific article, I would say it fits my 'Confirmation bias'. That is through my career I had not seen an effective link between the quality of academic credentials and ability to predict future.

An economics PhD or CS PhD (or masters) did not particularly make a person being able to analyze current conditions to predict future outcomes any more than a lay man with a lesser university degree.

Just thinking outload here the, diminishing reliance of a average layman on credentialed expertise, seems to be real.

This indicates a combination of 'experts' being intentionally used to promote some money making or policy making idea. Resulting in these experts being viewed as false prophets or health advisors, or military/foreign policy advisors. Essentially resulting in general public loosing trust in 'expert opinions'. That's what the article is reflecting, providing some current examples.

---

Not mentioned in the article, in the field of computer programming, this may indicate that an advanced degree in computer science may not result in significantly differentiating 'practical' expertise in typical programming jobs with AI or without AI help. This is my particular experience too.

One could only project that view into many fields where evaluating critical impact of a particular decision or a prediction is not practically possible. So subsequent grading of an 'expert opinion' becomes an exercise in one side arguing for an 'F' and other side for a 'B+'

A thing about strategies, if it is good (even for a particular set of circumstances), if it is leveraged by other traders, it become less impactful

if my strategy is good, could you confirm that it will not be copied by anybody? (not that I have something that I think is good!)

Not sure that the arguments are reasonable.

This 3rd-level-derivative blaming Microsoft for innocent causalities in the war against terrorism... may work for some people, but certainly would not work for many OSS developers.

Using this 3rd-level-derivative logic that the author is using, could one assume that the author of this post supports the murderer, Elias Rodriguez?

I would like to have a substitative discussion of how to validate the claims that DOGE is not saving as much as they claim.

Should I trust the Intercept's article [1] that New York times is referring to?

I guess a larger point is that NY Times wants to their readers to focus on particular instances where Doge, they believe, they miscalculated their impact on waste.

But, in my mind, does not change the overall intend of Doge's remit, the short term and long term benefits of improving organization efficiencies, reducing corruption, and reducing federal budget.

50 years from now, the next generation will be looking at these times, and these efforts -- as a rare example of positive, transformational polices, a bloodless revolution of the common sense defeating the monster of corruption, selective persecutions, identity politics and senseless wars.

[1]https://archive.is/MCUX8

Looks like Sean Beeghly at US Pittsburgh School of law -- has been taught how to mislead readers, by creating the 'half-truth' titles. --

The Executive order language is aimed at agencies within the executive branch of US government:

"... Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch. Moreover, all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register.

..."

> This is all very basic, can someone explain what I'm missing here? Why people are pushing for this thing that doesn't make sense whatsoever?

So do the analysis from another point of view.

https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1854144250562429081

Assume (say your null hypothesis) that 2020 had fraud by creating ballots that voted for Biden just in enough in several GA, AZ, PA, MI counties.

Now, say in 2024 -- that fraud did not work (could not be done). How would it look at the number of voters who voted in 2024?

Is that plausible that it would like 'fewer people' voted in total, and also giving less votes to Harris?

If it is plausible, then that's the core of their argument, in my understanding.

No, it is not a single thing that drove US citizen to give Trump unprecedented mandate to fix the country.

It is:

1. the selective outrage judicial system that corrupted the trust in the process , the judges and the prosecutors. Not only towards Trump, but towards his close allies and supporters

2. It it the Covid response that forced people to get vaccinated to get a job (talk about bodily autonomy)

3. It is complete disregards for immigration law, importing into US workforce, families and criminals illegally. Causing hardship to US citizens

4. It is the visible immoral US stance on using Ukrainian lives in an unwinnable territorial war, so that US could 'weaken' Russia, while also enriching the military-industrial complex

5. Yes, it is the economy (inflation, lack of stable income, where people have to work multiple jobs to pay rent and to buy food).

6. It is a complete disregard for a family unit, parental accountability and control for mental health of young kinds. Adoption of transgender surgeries for the kids, having public schools push racial self-hate, demoralizing kids identities.

7. It is support for on campus violence against american Jews.

8. It is remarkable encouragement for transgender to compete, and even violently attack (or hurt in competition) females.

9. It emboldening the South American gangs in crossing borders, child trafficking, extortion.

10. it is distrust in 2020 election process, and the judicial refusal to actually review the cases brought in front of them.

Different 'categories' of voters were deeply disturbed by different points in the above. But the collectively -- it is clear that the problem why Dems lost is exactly in their anti-constitutional, immoral policies and constant lies by the propaganda machine and their 'experts' (that Trump is guilty of something, Russian interference, mRNA is safe ... etc)

Trump received a mandate not just to address one of the above points, but to address all of them and forever through strengthening the word of the Constitution via detective, preventative and corrective controls.

I am sure there are multiple views on this. Some I had read: " Federal law prohibits paying people to vote, rewarding them to cast a vote, or even for registering to vote — however, compensating people for signing petitions or convincing others to sign them is not illegal "

https://nypost.com/2024/10/20/us-news/elon-musks-1-million-p...

I keep thinking that these kinds of sites, e.g readthedocs.org should be LLMized. It is certainly easier and more efficient to browse through them via an LLM prompt, rather than the old search box.

>"But much of his rhetoric on politics has trended rightward. In July, Zuckerberg praised the former president for how he handled the shooting at his rally, saying it’s why “a lot of people like the guy.” In the August letter to Jordan, Zuckerberg criticized the Biden administration, saying it was “wrong” in 2021 when it “repeatedly pressured” his company to take down some covid-related misinformation — agreeing with a long-standing Republican talking point.

I had noticed that trend. Another recent 'swtich' [1] so to speak was by ambassador Sonland [2] who was a key witness against Trump in the first impeachment trial on funds to Ukraine .

My take that these folks are doing the 'switching' because they are thinking they lied under oath before, and they are preparing to argue that they were 'innocent bystanders, swept but pressure and misinformation by corrupt (and un-suable agencies...).

In other words whether it is Zuckerberg or Sonland -- they are preparing for the situation (just in case) where Trump wins and direct DOJ to validate accuracy of the under-oath witnessing for the last 8 years of investigations and selective-outrage-enforcement targeting maga leadership and their supporters.

Of course, I have no idea if that's the case, so just my personal point of view.

[1] https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1841867004975649122

[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/27/gordon-sondland-ukr...

Not just hedge funds.

Congressional democrats, and i am sure republicans too can outperform S&P 500

--

>" An exchange-traded fund (ETF) that tracks the stock trades of Democratic members of Congress has been outperforming the S&P 500 since its launch in 2023. "

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/etf/etf-named-after...

Not sure why my post was flagged here.. .but My counter answer to yours is:

-- I suspect that many of the people in some public / high-net-worth / high-visibility positions that support Trump, actually share most of his views (on social issues, on governance, on foreign policy).

However, those folks will pick up 'least divisive' differentiating issue they can find, and will say that 'that's why the support Trump (e.g. low taxes, or whatever).

But I think they support him for being a modern day hero, basically -- withstanding the assault on his person, assault on his close allies, on the US Constitution, withstanding the pain, the threats, for years -- and not giving up.

And, yes, they support whatever he stands for as well. So they support the person, and support his policies not just 'a particular issue.

Seems like the Biden alternative being propped on all the left-leaning search engines.

So most likely the Clinton/Obama machine chose Whitmer to replace Biden in the last minute.

they should not do that because Meta is not a platform for constitutionally-allowed free speech, instead, they are a platform for selective filtering.

So let them stay that way. It is good to have the moral clarity of what they do, enforced by their actions.

It much more beneficial for the society today, and for the future -- that the political actors have their masks off.

I am not trying to suggest that Meta is good or bad, I am just happy that we see Zuckerberg and other billionaires with the mask off, same for many others.

I am guessing, it is same original source that Finnucane had about Hunter Biden's laptop being a 'russian plant'.

Waste is a huge problem, clearly human made, clearly responsibility to address in every current generation.

Cost of products sold must include recycling and waste management costs.

Otherwise, the manufactures will keep making devices/items with built-in-obsolescence to make it 'fashionable' for consumers to replace them at the first opportunity.

Dan's text explaining the presentation

https://overreacted.io/the-two-reacts/

Try MS robotic automation (they may have a cheap / free account)

https://powerautomate.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/process-invoi...

We live in the time when there is sharp decline in trust of public institutions and academia.

What is considered 'safe' to use, or 'unsafe' -- is debated at the level of a layman (a person without specialized knowledge in chemistry, biology, immunology, etc).

We cannot all be specialists in human biology, finance, internet security / etc. And that's being exploited by powerful organizations.

When the above happens, and we feel taken-advantage-of we tend to 'default' to our 'localized' experiences and instincts.

For me, and I am sure many others I do 2 things

a) I trust the NIH positions and articles before 1994 or so, much more than the most recent ones (on the topics that rely on observational statics)

b) I tend to do research on these topic across countries (especially if I can translate, of non-English speaking countries).

Forums like this one, may amplify just one side of the view (recently publish observational stats, English-speaking ).

My suggestion, if I may offer one -- continue to be cautious and use information sources that are 'balanced'.

Famous quote by Benjamin Franklin (from 1755) : “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

...

"... Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance--and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former. ..." [0]

[0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-ben-franklin-reall...

A hear-say: it has typical liberal-city corruption and crime issues, and, of course, with a very high cost of living in safer neighborhoods.

Better for taxes if you are ultra-rich, but otherwise you will be commuting 1.5 hours into an office in Miami, if you want to live in house that you can afford, with nearby public school where your kid will not be bullied.

Since you lived in other places, can you comment/compare on judicial system (level of corruption to get things approve, to have contract-related case litigated, medical malpractice issues, etc).

Also schools for children (cases of bullying, subpar level of STEM education, etc)?

Would be good to know of how these former Soviet block countries moved away from the almost universal corruption of basic institutions.

>it's really crazy how wasteful we're being with electronics in general.

Indeed. from non-replaceable batteries, to weak headphone and charging port connections, to breaking cables, to mobile phone OSes. Most of consumer-oriented hardware manufacture seems to rely on obsolescent-by-design to get consumers to spend on the same type of device, in short cycles.

Probably similar to the big pharma that may appreciate the economic benefits of a chronic diseases.

You hire consultants. You paid them a million, you also made a million on the product they produced that year.

So they were not really 'researchers', working out on unknown with high risk probabilities, instead they were building an asset that made you money the same year.

You would deduct the payment to these consultants as expense. they pay their own taxes on their salaries.

You are left with an asset that you can make money on, year after year.

That's, I think what they are thinking.

But a) you were not prepared to turn your salaried employees into consultants b) the asset requires extensive up-keep, that costs as much as money as it was to 'create it' c) the asset value without the up-keep can become zero in year d) the asset itself is very risky and may not have value later on.

So I overall agree with your sentiment.

The gov does not want to classify software dev as 'research', but yet -- they have not established how to fairly classify it.

This is a clustferfuck.

Not an accountant But I think, they are thinking that software devs should be consultants ( unless they are researches doing something very risky, something that may not work (from technical not business sense))

This way, they are an expense to the corporation, and each one of the consultants pay their own income tax.

In that way the corporation building software for sale/SaaS is treated the same way that a corporation that's buying and then renting out real-estate, for example.