Are you arguing that the stock market is not correlated with unemployment? That’s a weird and plain stupid hill to die on because anybody can disprove it with 3 seconds of googling.
It might be a stupid hill to die on that general statement, but currently we have a falling stock market with very little unemployment which is part of the reason for the inflation.
> An inverse relationship between level of unemployment and forward stock market returns. In the current quintile (2.5% to 4.4% unemployment), the average S&P 500 return over the following year is 5.6% versus and average of 12.7% in all periods. The best returns historically have come after periods of high unemployment
Maybe you should use a source that is at least self consistent?
Inverse relationship between unemployment and returns - proceeds to show a table where the lowest quintiles of unemployment have the lowest returns. That doesn’t seem very inverse to me.
In any case even if you don’t use some trash site that can’t get a basic editor/proofreader and correct that error, it’s not counter to anything already told to you by me and others.
You both make valid points. The JPMorgan memo's point is that a view on the economy is insufficient for reaching a view on the market. If we're heading into a recession, that doesn't necessarily mean stocks will fall. If we've rounded the bottom, it doesn't mean stocks will rise. More pointedly, it's asking its clients not to sell even while it predicts a recession.
The Seeking Alpha piece doesn't support your argument. Returns one year post peak unemployment are good because valuations at peak unemployment are in their trough. The correlation drives the effect. The article could be summed up as buy when the market is low / unemployment is high.
There is a real effect that comes from the stock market being forward looking and the labor market backwards [1]. When unemployment goes up, markets go down, and that's a problem for forced sellers.
> A train can go hundreds of miles per hour faster than a Tesla sports car. But which is quicker off the mark?
Top speed of most trains is below that of a Tesla let alone super cars. The trains that can go significantly faster (but not really hundreds of miles per hour faster - Maglevs - are capable of similar acceleration). This analogy is not the greatest for the point being conveyed.
I think the point here is that trains go for hundreds of miles faster than a Tesla. If you're going 800 miles, a train might well get there first, though a Tesla's top speed is 4x the trains.
I think this comes down to a difference is perspective of trains. Coming from a European perspective when I first read the analogy I was imagining the incredible fast passenger trains over here (~320km/h).
I suspect if you are coming from the perspective of a US rail user then yes, they aren't exactly known for high speed train travel.
320 km/h is not hundreds of miles per hour faster than the top speed of a Tesla, especially one like the Plaid marketed for speed. I don’t give a fuck if you’re from Europe or the US, high speed trains aren’t faster than high speed sports cars. This is from the perspective of someone who’s not an idiot.
This is laughable. Proof? How could anyone prove that AGI is imminent in a mathematical way? You would need to know the mathematical underpinning of intelligence and nobody will have that until after the fact.
It’s more likely for a winter? Dude, you either think AGI is inevitable or not. I never said how many winters are between there and now. But the idea of a winter now is completely insane. What is it precisely about the past 6 months that indicates a coming winter?
Show proof or evidence. Lol. The evidence is clear as day. The indicators and heuristics. Look at what software did 20 years ago and look at what it does now you fool.
The throughline from what software did 20 years ago to what it does today is pretty clear.
There's absolutely no throughline from the current ML projects to an AGI. The kinds of things they're doing don't even resemble conscious or abstract thought. They are probabilistic engines trained to mimic one thing at a time, only responding to specific input prompts, with moderate success.
Just because you can say that the computational structures being used resemble those in a human brain doesn't mean it's capable of the same things.
This "AGI is unfalsifiable" "either you believe or you don't" stuff is religious zealotry, just with a different focus.
Nah. I don’t think you understand consciousness. You claim there’s no connection but you couldn’t describe how consciousness works let alone how the models work. Don’t put words in my mouth, I never talked about the architecture.
There is no throughline from software 20 years ago because software was written deliberately then. All the experts said we wouldn’t be anywhere near where we are today by today because of this. If you can’t see the paradigm has shifted then you are simply wrong.
Proof should be required to continue forward. We shouldn’t need proof to do what’s safer. Especially when the consequences are so extreme.
I understand consciousness well enough to name two necessary-but-insufficient prerequisites for it, which I call continuity of input and continuity of learning.
The former means that it has to be always-on, with some form of continuous input stream, like our senses, as distinct from the current ML systems that sit there idle, waiting for discrete input and giving discrete output.
The latter means it also needs to be, effectively, continuously using that input to re-train itself, as distinct from the current systems that are trained once or multiple times in discrete batches, then used over and over again with that static model.
Since you have the legal background can you explain how the CEO publicly stating in writing “Everyone exited was offered 3 months of severance, which is 50% more than legally required.” is not actionable at all?
Also how is this definitely not a WARN act violation?
Blatantly lying in a public statement is not against the law, depending on the circumstances. Otherwise the man would already be in fairly deep trouble.
There is nothing to signify that he isn’t already going to be in fairly deep trouble. He has been sanctioned and fined for past violations based on his tweets, for example by the SEC.
> Windows CE but it was mainly the homebrew community
Name some?
Granted I’ve been out of the homebrew dev scene for a while, but this doesn’t sound right.
Developing for Windows CE would require a commercial/proprietary copy of Platform Builder and Dreamcast BSP. This is not very “homebrew” friendly at all - especially when there were a ton of homebrew libraries and OSes for Dreamcast through the years, eg Kallistios.
There are a few homebrew releases that used WinCE, but that makes up something like 1% or less of homebrew software. I think there was some MP3 player, a 3D FPS that was never released, and a Duke3D port? Maybe a couple more? KallistiOS is, by far, the most popular choice, and is used in probably 98% of homebrew.
All generalisations have counter examples (hence it being a generalisation). The fact that the above link is a small portion of all the games officially licensed on the Dreamcast supports my generalisation.
I was responding to the claim WinCE was mainly used for homebrew. That’s not true. It wasn’t used much, but what it was used for was mainly commercial releases.
You do not store the password on a password manager either. LastPass swears up and down that they never see your master password, all encryption happens client side. I can see good reasons not to trust LastPass at their word, but Bitwarden?
That “poor soul” was a senior director of marketing, not some minimum wage assistant. And violence, a bit hyperbolic, it was an underhanded toss - no one calls that “chucking” where I’m from at least.
Sure he had a temper but this is painting a misleading picture of that episode.
You know what, I looked it up, you’re right, and this is an incredibly poor example of the point. I will stop using this example of Steve Jobs being an asshole.
> no one calls that “chucking” where I’m from at least
not disagreeing in substance, but a couple of quibbles: that absolutely does qualify as chucking--it's the way woodchucks chuck--but it does not qualify as chucking at someone; so as an underhand toss, it wasn't underhanded
