> It was easy to find people with the exact same problem as me, but getting the problem solved was often hopeles
That was true for me, back when my 14-month-old iMac (I was relying on to make music) developed color streaks on both sides of the display. The forum told me I was one of hundreds of victims ... before that topic was erased. A 'fix' took a couple of years to be offered.
OTOH, if the WA temp is below freezing, then - to get up the next hill when wearing summer tires -- you may have to back up a block or two to build enough momentum.
If the previous hill was too close to the next, you've got a quandry.
The stock market is basically a system for abstracting ownership away from human beings.
When you have a small business, or even a large business that has a single owner, that person has to care about things like their own reputation and might sometimes have preferences for things other than maximizing returns. There is a significant difference in behavior between a profitable company that makes money by providing something people want and a company that makes slightly more money by turning the screws at every opportunity.
And typical funds only care about number go up. Even the ones that nominally exclude "bad" companies/industries have their rules, but then hold shares in Comcast rather than Exxon and still expect Comcast to turn the screws. Whereas to do the real thing, you would need funds with missions to do things like specifically fund companies who are new entrants to concentrated markets to increase the amount of competition. Which to most funds is a conflict of interest, because if the fund has that industry as a target then it already owns shares in the companies the new entrant would be competing with. Conversely, mergers they're all for, because they own shares in all three companies in that industry, so causing three to become two is higher margins for everybody.
So it produces market concentration and drives obsession with quarterly profits, harming customers and employees. The consequently larger companies then buy off the government to get subsidies and insist they're too big to fail whenever they screw up, use the nature of multinational conglomerates to arbitrage tax rates and shift tax incidence to purely domestic companies and workers, etc. All of which the funds like because they make number go up.
It's basically a paperclip optimizer which is trying to accumulate money rather than paperclips.
> So it produces market concentration and drives obsession with quarterly profits, harming customers and employees.
Maybe? Maybe not! Just saying it doesn't make it true.
I'll skip the step asking Claude to produce the lengthy list of examples where market concentration richly benefitted customers, employees, and taxpayers.
One difference: the longer your money is in a casino, the more likely you are to lose it; while the longer your money is in the stock market (especially in a total market index fund), the more likely you are to win:
Isn't that the place where if I win loads of money, they give me lots of free stuff and invite me back? The same place where if I lose loads of money, they give me lots of free stuff and invite me back?
Like Simon and Garfunkle (at their peak at the time), the film was very much a part of its time... 1967. SO much has changed since then, including the uptightness. Without that zeitgeist, that movie loses much of its power.
The currently accepted 'knowledge' framework has been vigorously defended in WP since its beginning. When the label 'pseudoscience' appears in the first few paragraphs, you can usually depend on content highly critical of any threats to the orthodox (if they're even allowed mention).
Academics are more likely to defend the current paradigm. Traditionally, anomalies often go unmentioned in published papers.
All evidence for the existence of meteors was denied for centuries after Newton declared that outer space is empty - until the late 18th century, when ignoring the evidence became too burdensome.
Some of that stuff, rather than deliberate ideology may be the writers doing what they can but not getting it quite right. You can always try correcting it yourself if there is a factual error and you have a suitable source to cite.
I appreciate a serious answer, and I have to say that I avoid articles on modern conflicts and people for most part, at least in part for the reasons you state. I’m not sure that it’s a singular bias so much as the usual, “Always online true believers of any stripe will always be far more likely to contribute, edit, and fight for their views than the rest of us.”
As a technical resource I love Wikipedia, as a quick reference it’s valuable enough.
I feel like you're one of the only people reading about Marxist topics on Wikipedia, given that most (intelligent) people genuinely interested on the topic will engage with primary sources. Very rarely do I read "below the fold" on any topic, but especially on topics concerning sociopolitical issues is my scrollbar completely untouched.
You may be raising criticism genuinely, but you're fighting a very uphill battle because many of the people who cry about Wikipedia bias would want, e.g., the article on Communism to start as it does on Conservapedia:
> Communism is a left-wing anti-democratic and violent ideology dedicated to overthrowing capitalism, replacing it with an unelected "dictatorship of the proletariat" by technocrats and an atheist elite.
which is, for lack of a more honest and concise word, retarded.
Im on the progressive left just not the ML communist left. I dont only engage with the wikipedia page or I wouldnt have noticed the clearly marxist framing on some sections.
Wihtout getting into the details, I never got a chance to do what I'd wanted to do, professionally, from the time time I was a 5yo until I left for college. It just wasn't in the cards. And I would have been really good at it.
I'm sure there are millions in the world like me. Not too sorry for people who got 5 or 15 or 25 years of opportunity to chase their rainbow.
" in February 2023, [KM3NeT] detected the most energetic neutrino ever observed. It's called KM3-230213A, and its estimated energy was 220 PeV (220 x 10^15 electron volts or 220 million billion electron volts) "
That's an insane amount of energy. If your are knowledgeable about this do you know why some neutrinos have more energy than others? surely it is just a relationship with it's speed. I thought all neutrinos moved close to the speed of light.
If my quick math is correct that is equivalent to dropping 3.59g one meter in a vacuum in earths gravity. insane that a subatomic particle can have that much energy.
It says "typically, energetic neutrinos from active galactic centers are thought to originate from interactions between protons and photons, producing gamma rays of comparable intensity." and suggests other theorized sources.
Another good source on this new branch of astronomy:
Particle physics processes in the sources we suspect accelerate particles in a way that results in a power law distribution of energies. So you can get extremely high energy particles, but the higher the energy the rarer.
And sources have a maximum energy they can accelerate particles to.
That was true for me, back when my 14-month-old iMac (I was relying on to make music) developed color streaks on both sides of the display. The forum told me I was one of hundreds of victims ... before that topic was erased. A 'fix' took a couple of years to be offered.
reply