>As an employee you don't have financial risk tied to the company

Is your livelihood, housing, ability to put food on the table for your family etc. not a risk by your understanding? Or are you only willing to accept certain types of financial risk as "risk"?

Here's an illustrative question: John Q. Billionaire owns shares in a passive index fund such that he practically has the same exposure to Amazon's stock price as if he owned $10 million in stock. I will potentially be homeless if I lose my 45k per year job at Amazon. Who has more risk?

This drives me nuts. You move to another city, risk your livelihood on a new job that you don’t know if is gonna work out for you. Your kids go to a new school, your partner has to either move to find a new job, or make it work long distance for a while… Your whole life changes on what is essentially a bet, you have no security whatsoever. And people say the risk is not yours.

Also - and I think this is the main thing - you have NO SAY in any of it after you sign that contract. An owner DECIDES to close shop. To fire people. You risk being fired for whatever reason comes to the mind of your boss, manager, director, owner.

But yeah, no risk. No risk at all.

Then don’t do that? In 2020, when I had the “opportunity” to work at Amazon in a role that would eventually require relocating after COVID, there was no way in hell I was going to uproot my life to work for Amazon and that was after my youngest had graduated. I instead interviewed for a “permanently remote role” [sic]. If that hadn’t been available, I would have kept working local jobs for less money.

Anyone with any familiarity about tech knew or should have known what kind of shitty company Amazon was. At 46, I went in with my eyes wide open. I made my money in stock and cash and severance and kept it moving when Amazon Amazoned me. It was just my 8th job out of now 10 in 30 years.

If your a billionaire and you invest in index funds, the risk of becoming homeless is really low, sure. The system works in such a way that the more money you have the easier it is to make more money. So if your stuck at the bottom, your really stuck.

And I believe there is a huge shift of wealth going on, to a very small number of insanely rich people. And that is a very big problem.

I don't think the billionare is at risk of becoming homeless even if they invest all $10m in a single company and it goes belly up.

It seems like both the authors on this paper were hobbyists (though, to be fair, trained mathematicians/statisticians, as one has a masters and the other a PhD).

I think the risk is that there is some systematic difference between those who chose to participate and the overall population of public Montessori kids. For instance, maybe those with high incomes disproportionately chose to participate, and Montessori strengthens learning for this group, but if we could measure the whole population the result is more mixed. It can't be a fully RCT if there's some kind of opt-in provision (which is not to say that an opt-in provision is bad, or a study that is not fully RCT is irrelevant).

This is a speculative criticism about a hypothetical problem. How random was the study?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2506130122 You could have answered your own question by reading the abstract, which makes it clear that the OP's conjecture was correct: the lotteries were random or somewhat random, but the groups which consented to the study were notably different, with the treatment group being richer, more educated and whiter. They did of course attempt to control for this, whether the controls were adequate or omitted other underlying differences is another question.

> You could have answered your own question by ...

Who cares? It's not about me or someone else (or you), it's about the issues at hand. If the commenter wants to make a claim, they are welcome to.

People on HN can't read a study without finding one of the few methodological flaws they are aware of - as if that's some form of serious analysis.

I would say that this is one clear purpose of Harvard-tier institutions, but that they do also produce valuable research, train educators, etc. as does any other university. Your point explains the "elite" part of elite universities, but they do also generally function as universities as well.

Or you could type up "My allergies are X, Y, Z, I have the following preferences..." etc. and put it into whatever chat bot you like. Obviously this is a bit of a pain, but it probably constrains significantly how much of a premium ChatGPT can charge. You might not bother if ChatGPT is time and a half more expensive, but what if it's 3x as much as the competition? What if there's a free alternative that's just as good?

I pay for the $200/mo ChatGPT, to me that's insanely cheap compared to the value it provides. Better pricing is highly unlikely to make me switch. If a competitor were able to sustain a lead in model intelligence/capability then I'd consider it.

Even simpler, ask ChatGPT "How would you describe my dietary preferences and restrictions?", maybe throw in some personality guidance of "You are training my executive assistant".

> Or you could type up "My allergies are X, Y, Z, I have the following preferences..."

Why use a car when you can just walk?

tbh most americans could do with walking more

Can you give some info on people "protesting on the side of the attacker in London"? That is, people coming out in support of the attack on the synagogue?

>When I press the buy and sell button, I want the transaction to happen as quickly as possible. So does everyone else.

Nope, not me. I don't mind if it takes like 20 seconds or so.

> not me. I don't mind if it takes like 20 seconds or so

Which is fine! You can probably find a broker who will give you fee-free trading with that preference. The price you execute at won’t be as good. But unless you’re trading millions, that’s probably fine.

I think trying to compete with Google in search is a big problem. First you have to deal with all the anticompetitive stuff they can do, since they control email and the browser and youtube etc. Second they could probably stand to cut the price of advertising by 5 times and still be turning a profit. Will ads in ChatGPT be profitable competing against Google search ads at 1/5 the price, hypothetically?

If they're better - yes. ChatGPT is a very different product from Google Search. Return on Ad Spend could be significantly higher than even Google/Meta/ByteDance can offer.

>Instead, the focus is on using technology to facilitate individualized learning. It is true that teachers are 'replaced', but by humans whose job it is to keep the students focused and motivated, rather than to convey information.

I have good news for you. Tell your kids to get into a few fights, or get caught smoking weed in school too many times. They will be sent to an "alternative school" as punishment that uses this same insight - let the kids sit in front of a computer all day "learning" while a teacher nags them to quit falling asleep. In fact, they can do it for around 6 hours a day, three times better than this charter.

But why shouldn't you be able to make a new Toy Story movie 100 years, give or take, after the original?

Depends, is there still a Disney making official Toy Story products that your products could be confused with? If not, fair game.

Yes

But ten years

A decade is enough

IP is a trade off, and the balance is wonky