Passive investing is a fairly new phenomenon and we don’t actually know if it works long term. The premise of the stock market is that it’s a market. Blind and wide investment goes against the principles of how investment works. We could be accelerating bad outcomes because we are basically rewarding and punishing companies based purely on momentum, not performance.

Basically, I think it’s possible that passive investment only works when it’s a small slice of total investment. Essentially, then you ride off the expertise and decisions of others.

What happens when it’s the majority of investment? We don’t know.

Plenty of people grow up in apartments in cities and live great lives. Often, they enjoy greater autonomy as they age into adolescence. Suburbs are basically prisons for children these days.

The truth is you don’t need a home or an SUV or a front lawn to raise children. And it’s also not necessarily better for them. It might be more cushy, sure, but that doesn’t mean it materially improves their lives in any meaningful way.

I agree with this. From my experience the more isolated and cushy early kid's life are, the less capable they end up being able to manage rough situation later in life. It's counterintuitive because as parents we feel like we need to build a golden prison in the suburbs for them.

Sure but literally everyone and their mom said these features were needed and then Go team said "nuh uh!!!" But, as it turns out, they are needed because they solve real problems, and are not just fake complexity like some people strawman.

Hopefully next they can add some error handling syntax and controls.

Changing your mind is not gaslighting, people just change their mind sometimes.

It's not this one thing, it's that yhey consistently do this

It's definitely not insurmountable. It just takes a little bit of inbox maintenance. Pressing unsubscribe and report when I have spam in the inbox, 5 seconds here, 5 seconds there. I still get spam, but it's minuscule compared to not doing this.

I just flag every marketing email as spam. It's much more effective than unsubscribing since it tells your email provider to just redirect everything from them to spam, and it causes trouble for the sender.

Exactly. Unsubscribe is for newsletters you consciously subscribed to but no longer want. Anything unsolicited that isn't a genuine one to one communication is spam and all the "unsubscribe" option does is verify that your email is active and will be able to receive more spam.

It's not insurmountable. Spam filters have been around for decades. They're pretty good. If I didn't expect the email, I train my spam filter that it's a bad email. There are a few that get through, maybe 1-5 a week, which require flagging.

The checkboxes seem to be a placebo. Sometimes there isn't one. Sometimes it doesn't do anything. Sometimes they say "updates on your order", which apparently also means future products you might want to buy a week after you receive your order. (Marketers' English seems like a foreign language to me).

I realise that CANSPAM as a law in the US is titled appropriately but I live in the UK where declarative opt-in is a must apart from a couple “soft” opt-in scenarios.

People. Opt. In.

Stop conflating your preferences with other people’s.

Spammers ignore both opt-in and opt-out, they do not care about UK or US law. That is where hosting provider enforcement matters.

Agreed but I don’t find the framing of labelling marketers as spammers particularly accurate or useful.

Ah yes, the law. Famously followed by every party, especially on the internet.

Riddle me this, if a shady company not even headquartered in the UK sends you a newsletter you didn’t willingly opt in to, what happens to them?

"Report as spam and block sender"

Repeat until the emails stop.

On Android with notification categories it is, but iOS doesn't have that. Also, I think it's mostly a trust system. But Uber in particular does actually do it right, and you can just turn off promotional notifications.

You would think, but the world is not generally just. Often evil and even incredibly stupid people do quite well. Companies and stuff can run off of life support or reputation alone for a long time.

And, often, running a company into the ground for a CEO is actually a good thing. Those CEOs are desirable to some because they squeeze money out of their company, even if it's self destructive on a long enough time frame.

I'm not saying anything about justice.

I'm saying supercharging the stupidity of actual idiots (not just people you don't like) tends to result in a pretty quick Darwin Awards. Even something comparatively benign like winning the lottery does a lot of them in.

You'd be surprised by how long a pathologically stupid system can perpetuate itself. Look at any of a million of local shitty maximums our (or any other) society is trapped in. They are all dystopian on one axis or another, and many of them are dystopian in drastically different ways.

Their insanity becomes very obvious once you travel the world a bit.

I never made it to Antarctica (though I've had friends who did), so maybe it's different there. But from what I've seen, I would agree that the range of stupid-human tricks is as impressive as you say, but the judgment of the human condition as "shitty" and "dystopian" or "funny" and "heartwarming" is something have people bring with them. I've met people that were feeling sorry for me at the same time I was feeling sorry for them, and people who were inspired and motivated by me as I was by them.

If everywhere you look you see dystopian shit and never any glorious humanity, you may want to do a little soul searching.

Not everywhere in the world is a dystopian shithole. I would say that most places for the most part aren't.

What I mean to say is that every society has dystopian elements (that are perpetuated and maintained in an incredibly negative-sum manner). Even societies that are on the whole, pleasant to live in have them in their darker edge, that they are quite unable to sand off - despite alternatives existing.

My understanding is that exercise lowers chronic inflammation. Basically, you trade off acute inflammation during the exercise itself for less inflammation when you're not exercising. But, maybe long distance running is too long or something.

Well I think most investors are dumb as rocks. I'm not sure most even know what a transformer is, or what LLM stands for.

Same thing with blockchain. I talked to many, many non-tech people who were very excited about blockchain. Most could not explain what, exactly, blockchain is.

So you... weren't... asking genuinely. You already came to a conclusion and just wanted to argue.

Even if it's "secretly" #2 for most people, is that even unreasonable?

It's so bizarre to me that people are acting like a supposedly existential threat on their livelihood is not a reasonable complaint or fear. Historically people, like, behead other people for that.

I don't know, I'm older so I have much less fear about my livelihood but I can't blame young people for being worried about it. And, if they are, for choosing not to use AI. In a way, you could argue that using AI is self-destructive.

The idea that building a hive machine world of ultimate efficiency is a moral imperative greater than creating a good and fair life for the living people of the world is psychotic. We could of course use AI to benefit everyone, but it's so incredibly obvious to everyone that's not going to happen and its hand waved. That's insulting.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.

I shared my assumption.

I asked the question to get a real perspective from someone who was already sharing. I didn't know their answer before I asked and still don't.

Also I never said #2 was unreasonable. And I don't blame anyone for being fearful either.

But there is an anti-tech sentiment on this tech site, and I find ironic and disappointing.