Transistors doubled for so long, but pretty much no other technology has come close, so it’s not like going to improve for very long, which is far more common. Transistors only did it due to a quirk in physics, that of electrons being long lasting, super tiny, and fairly controllable. We’re out of such particles to make another set of leaps.
For data bound things, there’s also fundamental laws of information theory, far stronger than physics theories, since they’re theorems about math. And LLMs can only compress knowledge so far, and we’re about at it now.
If Google communicates to Schumer, then do you think Schumer would then sit down and write the policy, knowing very little about it?
In reality, many companies would get Schumer attention on crypto, and other regulators, the companies would use their expertise to craft sensible policy, politicians would work with that, run it by lots of other groups and politicians, and if it passed enough tests along the way, it might come up as a bill.
It’s not like Google, or any company, likely can just put in ludicrous things, and use wizard powers to make laws. If a company breaks trust, they will lose the ability to get ears. If politicians, or parties lose trust, they get unelected. So, in order to have sane laws regarding any complex topic requires huge specialist inputs, and those specialists became expert by working in that field.
There’s simply not a pool of such people sitting around unassociated waiting to write laws to specifications of random internet people.
Yes, absolutely. Simply check. They’ve spent far over a billion over the past decade directly to politicians, PACs, etc. The teachers union is the largest union in the US, and I think even the world.
Income at all levels of labor has vastly increased over 80 years, more so than likely any country on earth, and certainly for any population this large, so something in your choice of words doesn't match reality.
Pedantic. The point was "aren't investors rational" and they clearly hop on short term fads to their and our detriment. Plus saying Enron wasn't a product of a merger is very funny
If you’re claiming the merger that created Enron is the sole or majority of its fraud 16 years later, then explain the vast majority of other mergers that weren’t fraud.
Or are you claiming anything that was a merger ends like Enron?
They invest because they’re smarter than cherry picking outliers to base behavior on, like you are. They have empirically done well as a group over standard timeframes.
For example if you bought S&P 500 in Jul 1929, you got your investment back in 1955 (inflation adjusted). If you bought S&P 500 in Apr 2000, you got your investment back in 2014 (inflation adjusted).
99.99% of people are not investing a lump sum on one date and liquidating it all on another date. Extend this graph to today, and it will be much greener.
your own NYT link shows the vast majority of withdrawal dates to have a median of 4.1% followed by the 'slightly above inflation' group then the 'did not keep up with inflation' group with the green returns being the smallest likelihood. there's even this literal quote in the article:
"Market returns are more volatile than most people realize,” Mr. Easterling said, “even over periods as long as 20 years.”
in your second link, a commenter rightfully calls out that the log scale makes the data reductive
I think whatever it is that you need to fall asleep at night is your own habit - it doesn't need to be the rest of ours
Fighting for free roads is a sure way to have crap or no roads to a lot of places. If you (or any consumer) gets value from there bring roads, then you should pay some for that value. It’s not subsidizing the super rich - sounds like you want others to subsidize you.
Would be nice if it actually worked that way. Here in my state we've paid for the tollway 50 times over but we'll never get to stop paying a premium over and above the repairs.
I can no data even close to your 50x claim. The most toll intensive states ($ of toll per mile driven) don’t even break even on annual maintenance costs, much less initial outlay for the roads. The gap is covered in other state and federal programs.
So, care to cite the states where the tollways paid for the road costs by 50x?
> Consumers shouldn't pay anything at all for roads.
If consumers get value from roads they should pay. Consumer road damage is certainly measurable, since plenty of roads disallow heavy trucks.
It’s silly to claim because one can see a billboard that the billboard would subsidize the value a consumer derives from roads. Putting up a billboard didn’t cause consumer utility of having a road to become zero. And private property owners are generally free to put up plenty of things, billboards included, without this odd request they subsidize others that look onto their property.
> nobody who has ever achieved notoriety in any intellectual field ever did it to "meet demand."
John von Neumann generated a prodigious amount of math specifically to meet demand, on demand, under govt contracts, world changing things. Some of it was fundamental in getting computers into use.
Newton (and Leibniz) invented calculus to address current astronomical problems, a contemporary demand.
Fourier invented Fourier series to meet the demand of engineering heat flow.
Heisenberg, Dirac, Born, etc. invented the formalisms of quantum mechanics specifically to meet the demand of experimental methods.
Many of these were paid by contemporaneous need to solve significant commercial value problems.
Theres tons of counter examples to your claim. So much so it’s hard to believe you’d make such a claim.
reply