greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
User ID: 68
SOL? Hardly. The child or young adult will just find something else he or she enjoys. A hyperspecialization program will weed out those who show little promise anyway or who are disinclined.
This is why universal-pre-k did not live up to the hype .Early gains, if any, fade by teens.
Yeah, for sure. Kids being pushed/prodded into extracurriculars or enrichment is par for the course in high-SES areas; few become any good.
All the real maestros I've known in my life yes, started young, but they also had at least one parent who was a professional musician at some level, even if its just a highschool choir director. Many of the musicians mentioned above also are the children of musicians.
I think it's genes . Same for athletes. it's not a coincidence that the children of professional sports players also tend to get into sports or have above average ability. however, the apple can still fall far from the tree or roll and there is a lot of regression. Brony James for example is only 6′ 2″ compared to his much bigger and better dad. Freeman Dyson's son , a science writer, is quite a step-down from revolutionizing theoretical physics as his dad had done.
Social media maybe to blame, or TV. Technology gives more ways for people to socialize at a distance or to disengage.
It’s known that to be the best chess player or instrumentalist you need to start at a young age, with ~5 being a common age to start for the best in the world. If you’re a chess prodigy or world class cellist, you hyperfocus on these skills throughout your childhood, and it’s accepted that you sacrifice normal schooling and extra-curriculars to pursue your skill. But why do we only allow this for the most worthless skills? There’s nothing unique about chess or cello — to be the best at any skill you need to start at around five. The Olympian Yuto Horigome started skateboarding before he could walk; Mark Zuckerberg started making apps before he was a teenager; Noam Chomsky joined political discussions as a child when accompanying his father to the newspaper stand; Linda Ronstadt learned all the genres of music she would later perform before 10; Von Neumann and Mozart had legendary childhood specializations.
nah, it's not the tutoring or hyper-specialization, but rather the IQ. Some of the most gifted mathematicians alive were not necessarily precocious at math, but by being so smart, were able to make rapid progress despite showing inclination at math later in life, such as in their teens or twenties. Ed Witten is an an example of this. Von Neumann was hardly the only Hungarian Jew who had an early start, but by being so smart, far outpaced his other 'Martian' peers. We need to find a way to raise IQ . Sure, Magnus Carlsen got an early start, but his IQ is also legit higher than probably most or all his competitors too.
By 13, Magnus Carlsen’s skill equaled that of a 40yo Garry Kasparov)
his IQ is way higher too. IQ vs ability is not linear, so an extra 40 points is not being 40% better than someone with an IQ of 100 but many magnitudes smarter.
I least am not supporting Trump because he's a paragon of morality , the most qualified, or effective at his job, but that he is the best option out there. Trump being unable to ingratiate himself with DC power dynamics lessens the likelihood of a major blunder, like another Iraq War or something of the scale. Tax cuts and stimulus are what we can expect, and judicial appointments that will outlast his term. The worst fears of every pundit from 2015-2017 of Trump came nowhere close to manifesting, so this makes me disinclined to take them seriously at anything.
But it's not like they are going to developing a new streaming platform every quarter, or have to pay the same legal expenses every quarter. The streaming platform is is the second unveiling since Truth Social , which is already 2 years old. The legal expenses are related to Trump Media's merger, which is also not a recurring expense. If this were $19 million in advertising to promote Truth Social, then this would be a much worse situation, as it's understood to be recurring. Similar newly-public tech companies such as Twitter and Uber also had large legal expenses after going public, but these proved temporary even if a big deal at the time.
Yeah but the disgusting, revolting and/or morally abhorrent stuff is typically transgressive. it's done for shock value. The AI stuff just feels so bland and generic, like stock photos or those inspiration photos [1], but under the label of art. Or something photocopied from a book.
Such as this [1] https://personalityjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/inspiration-min.jpg
shows how the health benefits of cycling are to some degree offset by accidents
The number of people displaced in this manner is probably so trivial anyway. Illustrators tend to serve specific needs for clients, not something easily reproduced by ai. AI art is just the latest iteration of the stock photo.
ai art is easy to identify: it's something no one would actually bother to draw
This is expected. AI art encroaches on a profession that tends to be solidly blue, similar to journalism, so there is an overlap between journalists and artists attacking IA art as either theft or being inferior. Some on the right oppose AI art for more asthetic reasons, but much of the criticism does seem from the left.
under body positivity/fat acceptance they are indifferent to it now or see it as a personal matter . I see no evidence of leftists being opposed to to or speaking out against it. Some liberals, yes, but not leftists.
Part of what may be inflating the stock price is the fact it's so expensive and risky to bet against it. shorting is close to impossible due to restrictions and borrow costs; put options absurdly expensive.
i believe Truth Social is profitable as a business and that these $19 million losses are due to one-time expenses, like legal fees . this is under: "Other general and administrative (G&A)"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/08/12/trump-media-truth-social-stock-price/74768174007/
most of those losses due to the development of the streaming service and legal expenses, which is not too bad.
interestingly, GME used its meme stock surge to sell stock to raise funds for various pivots, of mixed success. the ability to sell inflated stock, plus media coverage, improved GameStop's fundamentals overall https://www.shacknews.com/article/140225/gamestop-gme-75-million-shares-june-2024
they have investigated many prominent democrats this year or recently. For example, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, and also Eric Adams, Robert Menendez.
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp--Ticker: DJT--keeps going up despite predictions from as far as a year ago about how it it's running out of money. The rapid stock price appreciation over the past 3 months, from as low at $13 to $33, has has caught many short-sellers by surprise, and shows no sign of slowing.
There are a few ways of looking at this:
-
DJT stock is mostly a proxy for Trump's odds. People are buying DJT stock as a bet on Trump winning. DJT stock has superior liquidity, more possible upside, and less counterparty risk compared to prediction markets. The actual business is less relevant , although Trump Media should get a tailwind from Trump winning in terms of increased traffic and ad revenue to Truth Social and other Trump properties. Cryptocurrency, however, which should also stand to benefit from a Trump win, has seen much weaker price action compared to DJT this week. DJT was up 10% whereas bitcoin was down, suggesting DJT's price action is not entirety a stand-in for his odds, or that other factors are at play, like short covering.
-
In a blog post, I entertain a completely overlooked possibility: Trump media benefits from free advertising from the Trump brand itself more so than than if he wins or not. Even after losing in 2020, Trump was in the news constantly, or his sons or other family were. Advertising is one of the biggest expenses of any business. Trump gets, by my estimate, hundreds of millions of dollars of free marketing just by existing. This has to be worth something in the context of valuation.
Trump Media can launch a product or enter into a partnership, and the most expensive part--advertising for the userbase acquisition--is instantly covered at no cost. Trump's fans (or Republicans ,in general, or the overlap between Elon's fans and Trump's base) are the users, and the media's coverage (plus Twitter; Trump has the second-most popular account second to the CEO himself) is the marketing. All of it is free. Truth Social has not big a huge success, admittedly, but the market is likely pricing in additional pivots and partnership that should be bigger.
I predict there will be something involving Elon that leverages X/Twitter userbase or something like that. Trump also has his own personal conglomerate, The Trump Organization, which according to Wiki has $600 million in annual earnings. It's possible The Trump Organization can merge or go public under DJT, effectively combining the two under the same ticker. Although, being public, this would bring scrutiny to his business dealings that Trump may want to avoid.
In the context of efficient markets, if DJT were really on a collision course with insolvency as the media claims or as expected, it would be priced more appropriately, closer to zero instead of $33, so there is probably something up. It reminds me of twitter. The company has been stagnant and losing money forever, yet held on from 2013-2022 until being acquired at the upper-end of its price range despite endless losses.
The left doesn't hate McDonald's, or at least not anymore. It employs a lot of minorities, has many inner-city locations, and has always appealed to urban/hip sensibilities. I think there is more hate for McDonald's by the right for the whole obesity/seed oil angle. As part of the whole post-2021, post-Covid health reversal which saw the political polarity flip in terms of health culture, the left went from admonishing fast food in the early 2000s (e.g. Supersize Me) to bringing it under their coalition/fold. This is partly why they were so appalled by Trump working there; the rest because they are appalled by anything Trump does, or other reasons given.
It just seemed interesting as one of those things that seemed to trigger something unexpected in people for reasons that go way beyond the substance of the actual event, and figuring out what's resonating with people in either a positive or negative way, and possibly why, seems like a good path towards predicting future trends.
it's the trump effect, anything he does evokes a disproportionate reaction, because it's trump
Bottom 10% on AFQT is not the same as bottom 10% on IQ test. This would be more like bottom 20% on IQ test. Countries with mean IQs of 85-90 still find uses for these people; otherwise unemployment rates would be much higher. In the US, a high minimum wage and other regulation creates an incentive to choose smarter workers. If you have to pay $15/hour, you're gonna want the smarter worker/.
Also, why does the FBI need to make itself look good to the public? It's not an elected position. Also, it can work either way: rising crime is evidence more funding is needed; falling crime is evidence funding is working.
yes, many such cases. But they are not scalable or have downsides. Smoking is calming ...but lung cancer.
We don't need more hikikomori and drug addicts who don't work. (I will acknowledge that part of the change is due to people who are studying past the age of 25. But this is also bad).
I somewhat disagree. Getting these people out of the labor force may mean better service for customers and productivity for employers. People who have low inclination to work are probably worse employees.
It's not so much that they are arbitrary, but interpreting them is hard, subjective, or imprecise.
This is being a nurse, not a doctor. Doctors can triage, but also have to understand the intricacies of the body well enough to publish research or prescribe drugs.
More options
Context Copy link