Not too different from how SEO ends. Just spammy content written by bots.

Agree... while there are valuable and interesting notions in the article the final conclusion and the so-called curated friction is just too stretched for me.

Love it! This is a very useful tool to provide me with introductory (but granular enough) information about new investment ideas that I have.

Just two cents based on my usual workflow --

1. I like to compare companies within the same industry, so it would be good if i can ask follow up questions after reading a report like "How does company Y compare with company X on XX metrics?"

2. I understand that the reports are generated by a model; if that is true, maybe you could cross-reference the fillings with their corresponding earnings call transcripts (should be available for free on many investment websites) and highlight what is being discussed/asked in the calls as well

Again, thank you for the great work. Already pinned your site to my browser's investment workspace XD

Thanks, both are really good suggestions!

One danger is that, from a macroeconomics view, GDP growth can be attained without any regard for natural unemployment rates. When technology, controlled by capital, drives up markup on wages by displacing human labor and killing competition, then natural unemployment will rise, but the economy can still "thrive," from a statistical perspective. But it is individual persons being ignored by statistics. Indeed a grim future.

> GDP

Your entire argument is why I reject GDP as a reliable measure of economic health (that is to say, I agree with you 100%). It can be a component of it, sure, but as the standalone metric it's relied upon as-is, it's awful. Doesn't capture inflation, doesn't capture real productivity growth, doesn't capture employment rates or labor compensation or income distribution. Heck, GDP is literally an ideal expression of Goodhart's Law: we have built entire systems designed to game a single number that was proposed as a metric of economic health, which no longer makes it a good metric of economic health!

If someone's sole defense is "GDP Up = Good", I do not take their argument seriously - because it isn't.

And when working with people it's fairly easy to intervene and improve when needed. I think the current working model with LLMs is definitely suboptimal when we cannot confine their solution space AND where they should apply a solution precisely, and timely.

It’s also often possible to know what a human will be bad at before they start. This allows you to delegate tasks better or vary the level of pre-work you do before getting started. This is pretty unpredictable with LLMs still.

This is handy. Reminds me of my college time wasted on tweaking V-Ray settings...

I think when one experiences enough odds in their favor, they begin to disregard indications of prior probabilities that aren't in their favor.

The sub-issue structure seems much better than Jira's approach where everything has to fit into a hierarchy. Then it becomes hard to align on the definition of a certain level in the hierarchy.

This create-a-subissue-when-needed way is more sensible.

It's also not that different from what people have been using Task Lists for today: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/wor...

I think that's maybe my biggest question is what the interop looks like between Task Lists and Sub-Issues. Is there a "one-click upgrade" yet? What if I want to copy a list of Sub-Issues as Markdown Task List to copy into a Discussion or a Wiki somewhere?

You can use a single type of issue in Jira and just rely on linking them together

Yeah we ended up doing this. You should basically never use Epics or Subtasks in Jira because they have weird unnecessary restrictions that don't apply to normal tasks, especially around putting them in sprints.

Wow i didn't know that.