> “Shorting” a company does not just mean short selling stock. Instead, it means having a short position, which you can use without unlimited downside.

If you are an equity index holder anyway, simply by not holding any exposure in an otherwise "market" portfolio is a "short" relative to benchmark.

ie if I "buy" the SP500 constituents according to weight but with TSLA zero'd out my portfolio is essentially the same as long SP500 and short weigtht*TSLA.

Normally you buy into something like SP500 via something like an ETF, something with a very low fee because it’s managed entirely automatically via simple algorithms.

How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees?

Unless such a fund already exists, you’d be managing it yourself and pretty much wiping out any gains any time you rebalanced.

> How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees?

Various options…

1. Direct indexing (requires minimum amount of assets),

2. Certain actively-managed ETFs like GGRW, which is not exactly SP500 minus TSLA but it’s not too far off

3. Buying passively-managed ETFs in sectors that don’t include TSLA,

4. TSLQ, maybe. You get fees and other problems. I wouldn’t.

Direct indexing costs more than ETFs in terms of fees, but there’s apparently some kind of tax loss harvesting that you can do with direct indexing to offset the fees, and some people say you can come out ahead. I don’t understand how tax loss harvesting works at a satisfactory level (I’ve read articles and watched videos, but I think I would need to take an accounting class and really sit down with a spreadsheet before I could say that I understand how direct indexing and tax loss harvesting work together.)

Oh for sure, not an actual proposal for how to invest

Yeah, I'd have to go slower????

Anyway. I come from the UK where we've had camera based enforcement for aeons. This of course actually results in people speeding and braking down to the limit as they approach the camera (which is of course announced loudly by their sat nav). The driving quality is frankly worse because of this, not better, and it certainly doesn't reduce incidence of speeding.

Of course the inevitable car tracker (or average speed cameras) resolve this pretty well.

Reminds me of the FT article on the UK's energy transition and how costs were being spread through the system.

https://www.ft.com/content/86fdb9e4-3db4-4e4f-8e47-580a1fad2...

Made some reasonable points imo

If the kid knows how to ask an llm, they can do whatever technical hacks are required

Would that make the LLM (or the company who made it) liable under the DMCA for showing someone how to work around a digital lock that controls access to a copyrighted work.

I do not believe that teachers are working 9-5 if the children are arriving at 8am. Though to be fair I don't either, so doesn't much matter.

> automatically kicking a user off would also probably be bad.

No. "Sorry, subscription has expired, please re-up your account" is an extremely reasonable UX.

The whole "free period but we'll auto bill you after" is a shitty dark pattern that mostly exists to extract value from life admin errors. The people who got enough value to justify the cost would've paid anyway.

Exactly, this is one step from selling older people overpriced pots and rugs.

Or you can just add a reminder before the free period expires

Or they could just not autocharge people, or allow people to decide whether to autorenew or not when they sign up. The fact that they don't do that shows that they're trying to pull one over on people.

You can do that, but that's a dark pattern.

There won't be a re-do, there will be a feature request pipeline. Correct is a term of art and unlikely to come into it. If you start losing customers because of reliability, they'll ask Claude to fix it. If that doesn't work you're gonna be in trouble, because you won't have people.

> jobs destroyed will be replaced with new jobs

Not for horses though, or at least not the majority of them. Some were kept as pets or essentially status objects. In this case we are the horses.

95% of human farmers lost their jobs because of industrial revolution. What happened then? No jobs were created and we still have 95% unemployment, right?

And glue, you forgot glue. Maybe we'll get the Matrix plot line where we become human glue. Or, uh, batteries.

> In this case we are the horses.

This is assuming the conclusion. The entire question is whether we are the horses or every other example of humans in the past who found other employment that was inconceivable previous to the technological revolution that rendered their old job irrelevant.

But you are ignoring the substantial difference between previous technical revolutions, this time technology not replacing a mechanical operation.

Horses don't pay tax. The reason we have jobs is to pay tax.

Horses couldn't revolt.

And we won’t. Uber Eats Burger Reich and all.

imho Sinner and Alcaraz didn't solve the "overpowering aura" so much as the physical wear and tear took the trio down enough pegs to be much more attainable, and Djokovic is still competing impressively well.

Donate it to some charity which will ship it to Africa for you, so you can get the tax write off, _even better_