In crypto, you have centralised (e.g. Coinbase) and decentralised exchanges (e.g. Uniswap). Decentralised exchanges operate onchain via smart contracts.
> Intel has just said that unless a miracle will bring them serious external customers for their 14A CMOS process, they will stop developing it
Here's the actual quote:
> This Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Words such as "accelerate", "achieve", "aim", "ambitions", "anticipate",
"believe", "committed", "continue", "could", "designed", "estimate", "expect", "forecast", "future", "goals", "grow", "guidance", "intend", "likely", "may", "might", "milestones", "next
generation", "objective", "on track", "opportunity", "outlook", "pending", "plan", "position", "possible", "potential", "predict", "progress", "ramp", "roadmap", "seek", "should", "strive",
"targets", "to be", "upcoming", "will", "would", and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements, which may include
statements regarding:
> ...
> potential pause or discontinuation of our pursuit of Intel 14A and other next generation leading-edge process technologies if we are unable to secure a significant external
customer for Intel 14A;
I think it's pretty obvious that it's more of a statement to legally cover the company's behind from investor lawsuits than the current plan, and the fact this wasn't repeated anywhere else more prominent backs that up.
Who’s going to invest their time taping out with a foundry that warns they might pull the plug on future development? It’s self-sabotage, unless of course the point of prolific investor and CEO Lip Bu Tan is to strip the company for parts
Potentially using market dynamics to force a direction that not everyone in the company could otherwise be convinced to go along with. It does feel like Intel's equivalent to the infamous Nokia "Burning platform" memo.
Given Intel's history of being in denial about their troubles (in spite of the apparent risk of investor lawsuits), them suggesting they might cancel 14A and beyond should be taken seriously. That statement could just as easily be their way of breaking the news as gently and gradually as possible.
It is unlikely that Intel will secure an external customer for any process node given concerns about handing IP to a competitor combined with Intel’s past IP theft incidents (e.g. they stole from DEC to build the pentium processor). Thus we can assume that 14A will be discontinued.
> My understanding is that they did, but don't any more; it's no longer true that humans understand enough things about chess better than computers for the human/computer collaboration to contribute anything over just using the computer.
Your Nakamura example is from 2008. That's 17 years ago. The machines have improved a lot since then, hardware and software both. I've seen Nakamura beat strong-but-still-limited bots playing "anti-computer chess" but I am fairly sure he would be eaten alive if he tried it against present-day Stockfish or Leela on good hardware.
Maybe you're right about correspondence chess. That interview is from 2018 and the machines have got distinctly stronger in that time, but 7 years isn't so long and it could be that human input still has some value for CC.
I'm aware the Nakamura example is old, but the core issue (the horizon effect) is still there in any alpha/beta pruning engine, including the newest SF. But I will certainly grant you that it has become much harder to execute since then.
MCTS engines (like Lc0) are far more immune to the horizon effect, but can instead suffer from missing very shallow tactics, especially in very fast time controls, as Andrew Tang showed in his match against an early version of Lc0 7 years ago: https://lichess.org/@/lichess/blog/gm-andrew-tang-defends-hu...
> Maybe you're right about correspondence chess. That interview is from 2018 and the machines have got distinctly stronger in that time, but 7 years isn't so long and it could be that human input still has some value for CC.
I've played on ICCF and I can say that the draw situation is much worse now, exactly because engines are so much stronger now, so it's much harder to find good opening novelties against a competent opponent.
Engines were infamous for misjudging many closed openings like the KID, but even in the last few years that has really tightened up.
Still, the human element is useful in trying to steer clear of drawish openings and middlegame lines.
There's a beautiful game between SF and Lc0 (a few months ago) where Stockfish thinks it's winning, while Lc0 has a lock on a draw. Lc0 then proceeds to sack 4 pieces and draw, but SF (with NNUE) only "sees" the draw 2 moves into the position.
Logicians and philosophers of mathematics have also questioned ZF set theory and "set theory" more generally.
For example the axiom of infinity (by finitists), the power set axiom and first-order theories in general (the downward Löwenheim-Skolem theorem implies that the infinity and power set axioms can't guarantee the existence on an uncountable power set), the fact that ZF doesn't allow a set of everything, and in particular no proper set complements, the fact that the axiom of regularity seems to be useless, etc.
Of course most ordinary mathematicians don't care about all that, because they don't care about ZF(C) or set theory or the foundation of mathematics in general. They rather care about problems in their specific field, like algebraic topology or whatnot.
I wasn't trying to make an appeal to authority due 100 years having passed, that was tangential to my point that almost all modern math now sits on formalized axioms, which it did not do before the foundational crisis in math was resolved (about 100 years ago).
Comparing the axioms of math to relativity in physics is just nonsensical.
Math is independent of observation, if a proof is formally correct now, it will always be correct under that chosen axiomatic system. Sure, we can play with different axioms (as others commented, it's common to drop the axiom of choice), but that doesn't invalidate the previous work at all.
Math is not independent of observation. Math sits on logic which itself sprouts from human experience with the world around them. Math and logic are not alien pure forms isolated from this world. There is not even single concept of logic that is not fully tied to the human experience and perception (of the world).
The concepts such as true, false, equal, greater than - all refer to human experience with counting things or perception of existence etc.
I believe several of these were also used by civilian aviation before and after the war
TL;DR: both sides used systems with multiple ground antennas that allowed pilots to essentially triangulate their position or at least know they're in a given lane.
I understand that the germans used radio navigation to guide their nighttime bombers over Britain. Wikipedia suggests that the British quicly countered this.
One thing i find interesting is the fact that by sending beacons ahead of the bombing party, they literally broadcasted their intentions to the enemy but that didn't seem to worry them too much.
Public pension schemes always end up being turned into Ponzi schemes for short term political gain, especially as birthrates keep dropping.
US social security and Medicare are a great example of this but you'll find similar examples throughout the western world.
In contrast private retirement plans put the individual in charge of their own retirement (why should the government be telling you when to retire?) and doesn't put a financial burden on unborn generations.
The money always has to come from the labour of the future somehow. So you get the same burden laundered through the private sector, such as young people having to pay extortionate rents to retired landlords.
investment is literally future labor expectations. and a risk.
in case of crisis the gov routinely starts bailouts and save the financial markets with interest rate operations or open market operations. those operations have deep re-distributive implications. don't think they are free.
Building a machine that does useful work is not "future labour". That kind of automatic production by machine is absolutely dominant today, none more so than in software.
If you redefine everything as deriving value from labor and labor alone, OK. Government intervention is not a given, is not universal, and its impact on labor isn’t unique.
There are other investment vehicles besides equity and other ways to take value from past into future that are neither garnishing the wages of children and grandchildren (most current state systems) nor investing in artificially inflated markets.
Just as a thought experiment, consider if all state pension contributions were just used to immediately purchase gold on the open market that was then put into a vault labelled with the year of birth of the contributor. Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor. As far as I can tell, this system would be completely market-based and future labor would likely benefit as their “gold” might be cheaper as there would be less demographic demand.
> If you redefine everything as deriving value from labor and labor alone
"Alone" seems to be an unnecessary addition for the problem to exist.
And until the AI really can take all our jobs, it's not a redefinition, labour is one of several pillars alongside capital, though specifics vary depending on your school of economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production
> Just as a thought experiment, consider if all state pension contributions were just used to immediately purchase gold on the open market that was then put into a vault labelled with the year of birth of the contributor. Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor. As far as I can tell, this system would be completely market-based and future labor would likely benefit as their “gold” might be cheaper as there would be less demographic demand.
Consider this experiment on an island with just yourself.
You bury the gold. You reach pension age, and stop working. You dig up the gold. You now have gold. What do you spend it on? There's nobody offering services, regardless of how much you offer, therefore cost of goods, services, and other assets has a divide by zero error and inflation is asymptotically infinite.
Similar arguments work when the working population shrinks even if not becoming literally zero: unless technological improvements happen faster than the workforce shrinks, which is complex because tech affects different products at different rates, shrinking populations cause your model to get inflation even with gold as a currency.
In your simplification, you have removed everything that isn’t labor (i.e. demand for commodities) as well as labor. It is unsurprising that working to bury gold is a bad investment in this scenario. Instead, you should have invested in a farm and some robots. Sorry, there’s no free lunch if you can’t steal it from younger generations.
Edit: you’ve revised history and now added a bit about “similar arguments” and inflation. The answer is simple: yes, you might get back less real value than you put in. Yes, there might be inflation. This is fine and normal and would be preferable to the present system and is not dependent on future labor in the same way as direct redistribution. There are no guarantees. ‘Enforcing’ guarantees is a recipe for disaster as we are now seeing unfold.
> In your simplification, you have removed everything that isn’t labor (i.e. demand for commodities)
Incorrect, I'm definitely including demand in there.
I'm saying there's no supply.
It's n/0, not 0/0.
> Instead, you should have invested in a farm and some robots. Sorry, there’s no free lunch if you can’t steal it from younger generations.
(1) OK, but that's not what you were saying before
(2) (a) The AI to control those robots does not yet exist, (b) when that AI does exist, we can set the pension age to zero — doing so is called "UBI", and AI is often suggested as both a mechanism to enable it and as an economic transition requiring it.
> Edit: you’ve revised history and now added a bit about “similar arguments” and inflation.
It was intended for clarification, not to "revise history"; FWIW, the para in which you wrote this edit was not present when I clicked "reply".
> This is fine and normal and would be preferable to the present system and is not dependent on future labor in the same way as direct redistribution.
You asked "Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor." — I believe I have demonstrated that it is.
You have demonstrated only that the thought experiment is dependent on the future market for a commodity and not on some future labor being exploited. Value in the future is dependent on demand and not on extraction from labor.
I demonstrated: without labour there is no value to be exchanged.
I did this by showing that your own suggested commodity asymptotically approaches buying zero of the available zero goods, services, and assets as the production of those also becomes zero.
Yes, a nonzero quantity of labor is necessary to avoid a pathological economy? This is not debated.
The question is how the future value is priced. The original assertion was that future value must come from labor and there is no difference between direct redistribution and private transactions (of which only rent extraction was given as an example). My counter is that there are alternatives that are neither taxation nor rent-seeking. In particular, the holding of assets to be later sold is a store of value that notably does not depend on future labor any more than any functioning economy depends on labor as an input.
We have pretty robust systems for deciding what (most) things are worth via supply and demand. Claiming that future value must be extracted from future labor is just false — a system with some backpressure on the payouts to retirees is much more sustainable than one without backpressure. In your simplified thought experiment, you must agree that there is no dependence on future labor as none exists! The pension is also not effective, of course, but that is to be expected — essentially no pension is effective when stranded on a desert island.
(To be clear, I don’t advocate storing gold by birth year as a practical way to run a pension scheme.)
I thought your basic argument was sound, but having read through the conversation twice, you might not be putting it in the best light. Your point seems to be that value can be extracted from capital and that is a substitute for value from labour. Seems good to me. But you then went with a gold-based example. Gold is money which is not really a productive form of capital because there is almost literally no way to extract value from gold. It is inert.
The value of gold is it makes the holder indistinguishable from someone who had enough resources to procure yea much gold. A useful signal in a healthy economy. But it was asking for the literal on-an-island example where there was no otherwise healthy economy. Since your argument depends on productive investment of capital IMO you should have hammered on that a bit more rather than trying to bring gold into the picture.
I'm seeing a lot of misconceptions about debt in this thread. It isn't possible to "burden" "unborn generations" with debt, they can always just renege on paying. The problem is what we see in the US, where the debt in financial markets is reflected in the real world by ... massive capital formation overseas in China. So the damage has already been done, unborn generations won't have access to the capital needed to live the lifestyle of their debtor parents. This is because the parents never built the capital to sustain their own lifestyle and eventually the capitalists will stop donating free stuff to debtors. IE, debt isn't a future problem to be paid back. The problem is always in the capital formation of the present and past. It is the future consequence of what capital got invested in, where & why. In that sense high debt can be good or bad depending on how much went in to capital formation and whether the capital is productive. But typically high debt matches to poor choices deploying capital.
I agree with you. The island simplification came later. If the economy is broken, gold is not a good investment. This doesn’t change the fact that it is also non-extractive of future labor, though, which was the purpose of the thought experiment.
The problem with productive assets or non-inert commodities in this thought experiment is that they are much more dynamic — inert commodity prices are much easier to reason about.
You are fundamentally correct about capital accumulation, though. If you want future value, you should accumulate something (dynamic or static) that is valuable in the future — extracting rents or expropriating labor via force in the future are not pro-social behaviors.
The future labour must be willing to accept that gold for their labour. And likely they would ask more of it as there is more demand for their labour and less supply.
It could be that as labour is constrained the inflation in price of labour is higher than investment gains.
Yes, it could be! Life is risky. Nothing is guaranteed. I’d rather have the market set the rate of redistribution than have it done by fiat in a completely unsustainable way.
> investment is literally future labor expectations. and a risk.
This is simply Marxist crap and outright untrue.
> in case of crisis the gov routinely starts bailouts and save the financial markets with interest rate operations or open market operations. those operations have deep re-distributive implications
This is a rather new phenomenon and not at all necessary for profitable private investment.
It's really completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Not only but also. Adam Smith counted labour this way, along with capital and natural resources.
Until we're all rendered unemployable by AI[0], there's still human labour doing stuff in the system — the bedrock foundation for all the rest.
[0] 2^(1 + roll a D4) years? I expect it to be relevant on the timescale of me reaching pension age, but between Scylla[1] and Charybdis[2] I'm not at all certain.
It's not the same. If I save money it is no burden to anyone else. If I invest it, then the people receiving my investment do so voluntarily and we all make money or lose it. I have no power to exact a burden on anyone else through these simple mechanisms. The state on the other hand has virtually unlimited power to tax us into oblivion.
>such as young people having to pay extortionate rents to retired landlords.
There is a pathological case here when it comes to rent, but we are far from that. Rent is only extortion when there is widespread collusion to fix the prices. Otherwise it is supply and demand. If inflation and high demand have made prices unaffordable, it's not your landlord's fault. Landlords also provide a service (strange as that may sound), and aren't stealing from anyone.
If you had a profitable business, you could compete with the property sector for investment. Unfortunately we have outsourced many profitable things in the West, because we're competing with slave labor.
after three major financial crises in the past 20 years, it’s hard to call private finance “safe” from ponzi-like risks. more than a quarter of Americans have no retirement savings at all, and the 401(k) balance for near-retirees often falls well below $100,000.
but it's the logic of the argument that is faulty: declining birthrates also hurt private markets, which rely on a growing workforce just as public pensions do. do you think finance is somewhat magical? if there is no growth also the financial markets won't grow. pensions shouldn't be about growth, but they are mainly about redistribution.
if we dismiss public pensions as a ponzi scheme, then by the same logic, private plans—completely at the mercy of market swings—could be called ponzi too, except they often leave those who earn less with nowhere to turn when things collapse.
> declining birthrates also hurt private markets, which rely on a growing workforce just as public pensions do.
Right, it's well known that the US' demographics are the foundation for its strong economy, not advancements in productivity and technology. /s
> if there is no growth also the financial markets won't grow.
Financial markets don't need to grow for your investments to pay off.
Investing into growth stocks is very popular now a days but value stocks (which might not grow at all but have profitable operations) and fixed income are perfectly good options too.
> if we dismiss public pensions as a ponzi scheme, then by the same logic, private plans—completely at the mercy of market swings
Some of them can be, the difference is that public pensions are a Ponzi scheme I'm legally forced to contribute to and have little say in.
Not so for private plans.
