The problem with all these new fields is that the first code that gets popular is from people who are good at marketing not those who are good at programming.
Is it not still that way? There may be a bias towards believing trusted institutions, but that's because they have reputations for delivering truth based on experiments.
If 10-year Treasury notes yield 5%, for example, and you want at least a 3% equity risk premium, then you’ll only invest in a stock if you think you can get an 8% annualized return or higher. However, if 10-year Treasury yields are 1.5%, and you still want a 3% risk premium, then you’re willing to pay a higher valuation, and thus accept a lower dividend yield and lower expected returns from stocks; even 4.5% expected annualized returns would be better than a 1.5% Treasury yield.
"""
That is from the article. But it only works if US assets are the only game in town.
My brain dump on this: after USD become decoupled with gold it became a kind of measure of total USA production capacity (capital) - that is mostly equities and real estate. The Feds for now has all the levers to make it so - and make the equities and real estate prices go up smoothly. But it is also a reserve currency of the world - and with globalization this task is bigger and bigger and sucks in more and more USD while the US economy is smaller and smaller part of the global economy. That pumps US equities up (but according to the article not real estate) - and this is why the US equities are 61% of world equities while GDP is only 23%.
This can stop in a rapid phase shift once people realize that USD is not such a safe asset any more. Gold bugs have been wrong for 50 years about that and nobody believes this any more - but actually 50 years is not that long for a world wide buffer to fill up. And this time is really different than 1980 because of higher US debt, smaller economy.
The US debt will at some point become too big and Feds will not be able to defend USD (higher rates means more money goes into debt financing - and if the world stops buying that debt it goes into a self reinforcing loop)..
I would slightly disagree. USD as measured by the DXY is as much if not more of a function of international demand for dollars (ie Eurodollar markets). There is massive structural demand built into dollars based on coupon payments in $ denominated international sovereign and lessso corporate debt as well as international commodities markets.
> This can stop in a rapid phase shift once people realize that USD is not such a safe asset any more.
Why would they think it is not a safe asset and if so what would they do instead with it? Also: Why do you think this shift would be rapid like in a phase shift?
The number one scenario - inflation starts, Feds raises rates, debt service costs raise => debt grows even more and at some point people realize that it cannot be paid back without too much inflation.
Reinforcement in raised rates => depression and stock market crash => investors stop using US equities and real estate as value store.
Property? Gold? Industrial commodities? Mining rights? Used cars? Bitcoin? Farmland? Other hard assets? Arguably that’s already been happening, with the global melt-up in asset values across the board.
Now - why rapid - in general because it will be a bank run. People now assume that the dollars they have in the banks (and in notes) can buy them a part of the world economy - when they realize that this part shrunk they'll try to sell dollars and buy something else - adding to the dollar decline.
An honest question - what is the problem with inconsistency in using lambda calculus as a programming language and not as foundation of mathematics?
"""The lambda calculus was introduced by mathematician Alonzo Church in the 1930s as part of an investigation into the foundations of mathematics.[7][a] The original system was shown to be logically inconsistent in 1935 when Stephen Kleene and J. B. Rosser developed the Kleene–Rosser paradox.[8][9]"""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus#History
By virtue of all programming being resource-bounded computations can be interpreted in Linear logic [1].
Linear logic is paraconsistent [2] not consistent.
Untyped Lambda calculus is essentially an assembly language and Assembly languages treat their own code as data [3]. Contradictions arrise when a system can mutate its own state. That is the power and pitfall of reflection [4]
I wish there was a 'Modern Python' tutorial that would walk me through all the new python stuff like this or the type declarations or the new libs, etc.
If you're not averse to books I'm yet again recommending "Robust Python" by Patrick Viafore and for more esoteric things like metaclasses I would recommend "Expert Python Programming, 3rd Edition" by Michal Jaworski & Tarek Ziade. It's not wholly dedicated to metaclasses, so there are tons more to learn from it as well.
I learned about metaclasses in "Fluent Python". An excellent book, but it predates typing, so that's not covered. Then again, I believe a second edition is on its way.
My point was that to informative about a product you need to know the person you are advertising to. First of all because you need to choose the product that he might be interested about.
The problem is that what is addictive to someone is harmless for someone other. You cannot ban everything that makes someone addicted.
When you have a market niche - then sooner or later it will be filled. It does not make much sense to blame "concrete companies" - because once you close them they will be replaced by others. You need to make laws that would close the niche of providing the 'particular types of services that are problematic' entirely. And making those laws is difficult - because forbidding something always limits the freedom. There are lots of people here who believe that drugs should be legal.
And it is internet and smartphones that created these market niches putting us into that awkward position. It is also practical to focus talk on them - because there are concrete advice on how to configure your (or your children) smartphone (or internet connection) to make it less addictive. It is something that can be done without any collective action problems.
Exactly, I find it strange as I have a Facebook account but almost never use it, except for speaking to family. The last time I made a post was when I was visiting the US and was able to randomly meet 2 friends there just by chance, since they happened to be working nearby too.
Like you can say people spend too much time on TikTok, but if it wasn't TikTok, it'd be Twitch, or YouTube, or Netflix, or Instagram, or Reddit, etc.
> Like you can say people spend too much time on TikTok, but if it wasn't TikTok, it'd be Twitch, or YouTube, or Netflix, or Instagram, or Reddit, etc.
Right, because they're pretty much the same category of service, addressing the same niche.
To both yours and GP's points: it is true that "what is addictive to someone is harmless for someone other". This is true for alcohol, tobacco and gambling too. Yet we know that unchecked, these three cause tremendous social problems - and so we've adjusted both regulations and culture to find a balance between freedom and protecting the vulnerable.
Some things are objectively addictive. For instance, alcohol is an objectively addictive drug. If you don't have trouble controlling drinking now, that's excellent, but if someone were to somehow force you to drink 6 drinks a day for a year you would certainly start to develop physiological signs of addiction. On day 366 when you were free to not drink, you would feel a craving. There is no such thing as a person who cannot become addicted to it. It is the drug which is addictive, and not some failing/property of the person who became addicted.
In particular with social media, I don't like the framing of it as "what is addictive to someone is harmless for someone other". The addictive-ness is baked into the product whether or not an addiction is manifest in any individual user. Viewing the addictive-ness of say, Facebook, as a problem only "for some people" rather than as a property of Facebook, shifts blame away from the engineers and execs who purposefully make their product addictive, onto users who find themselves (somewhat innocently) addicted to an the addictive thing.
Don't want to be pedantic but I think it's an important point.
Instead of banning unsafe languages how about allowing for tort liability for software? There is a big difference in law between software and other engineering like building bridges. It used to be that software failures were not as severe as a collapsing bridge - but we are close to the point where it reverses.
