That means that you shouldn't vote at all, then. Good luck getting 60 Senate candidates and 218 House candidates who would agree to something like that on ballots all over the country, with a chance in hell of winning.
Definitely prefer something like Total market, even 500 companies is too much of a bias towards one group. Especially with the S&P500 currently looking like an S&P10...
> These results can help to explain national trends: workers in their twenties who often need mentorship and workers over forty who often provide mentorship are more likely to return to the office.
Too bad the former is the least likely to be hired thanks to "AI", and the latter the most likely to be laid off cause of ageism that says "You cant teach an old dog new tricks"
Off-the-shelf AI can replace workers in their twenties and AI fine-tuned over a few months for your company's needs can replace workers in their forties. Problem solved!
> Not all regulation is bad, and some of it is wildly effective at not just achieving the letter of the law but actually solving the problem it was defined for.
You missed a key component - Cost. It must not only work, be enforceable, but it also must cost less than alternative options and the value of the externality it's aiming to fix.
Solving ProblemA could be agreeable.
But if ProblemA causes $100 a year in problems, and the regulated fix is $110 then it's not a good regulation.
If the Regulated fix is $110 and there is a market solution for $75, then it's not good regulation.
If the regulated fix $100 but it is over-applied into 2x as many scenarios, then it's not good regulation.
Often the government loses out not in it having bad ideas, but that they break the flexibility of better options that require nuance and context to see.
Reads like: "I made poor decisions, over leveraged myself, and then I lost everything... Now I expect others to take the fall."
Lesson learned.
Be super careful who you open contracts with. Marriages are a coin toss. Would you put your total financial health up to a coin toss? Similar point about how much cashflow requirements you take on. (Can you pay the mortgage on your own? Are you ready to take on roommate(s) to fill your ex's place?)
remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
> "I can imagine that customers are really worried and distressed if they're facing financial difficulty, but they don't have to go through it alone," Ms Hutchins said.
> "The earlier they get in touch with their mortgage lender, the more support and help that that lender can give them and the more likelihood they have of getting back up to date with their mortgage."
> Options offered by lenders, she said, included reduced mortgage payments to allow time to get back on track, budgeting and other tools to understand "their full financial situation" and advice about debt charities and support organisations.
Why not? You can lease a car. IMO an interest-only mortgage is basically renting with upside to the equity, which is something the US seems to be very keen on getting everyone to have some skin in the realestate game. I'm not really into governments being paternalistic so I'd rather see people be allowed to choose poorly, but they also need to be able to suffer at least some consequences.
The point is interest only loan is Renting + Equity Exposure. It's a good move if you are experiencing the price appreciation growing faster than your downpayment. You can enter the market price exposure before you get priced out. And if you're right about the direction it's heading you can make money (relative to renting) so long as your outflow is similar to renting (across the time span, rents go up...)
> remainder from the article showing this guy just failed to do the right thing:
Huh? That's a quote from a banking spokesperson. It's not even related to any of the (several) stories in the article - it's a quote she gave to the BBC.
Assuming that by "this guy" you mean the first guy mentioned in the article, he had an interest-only mortgage. So sure, he was overextended, but exactly how much accommodation do you think he was going to get? The second guy did have an accommodation with his bank (also on an interest-only mortgage), and it is... he'll be repossessed if he goes more than eight thousand pounds into arrears.
The first guy seems to have a legitimate grievance. He wasn't allowed to sell the home to cover the mortgage. Here's the way the article actually ends:
> As for Mr Da Costa Diogo, his bank has repossessed the property.
> In the same month it was repossessed, the BBC saw a similar three-bedroom property in the same Thetford street as Mr Da Costa Diogo's on the market for £160,000 - almost double the amount he owed.
What are you talking about? The better outcome that he should have gotten is that he sells the house, covers the mortgage, gives up half the profit to his estranged wife, and still has forty thousand pounds left over.
For that to happen his estranged wife would have to agree, since she did not the best outcome, is the house gets repossessed covers the mortgage and he can go on with his life.
Seems like there must be a way to get his ex-wife taken off the mortgage if she’s actually abandoned the property and moved across the world. I can imagine it might be a tricky thing to navigate though.
> A lot of poor folks are having to stand in line for hours and hours to get food at a food bank due to [government] ineptitude
This is an element of the argument for dismantling the nanny bureaucracy and instead going to UBI / cash payments.
1. It doesn't waste time, both of the gov't employee, but also of the recipient.
2. The author could buy better food, or car parts, or a bus pass, or ... with what otherwise might have been a more or less forced purchase in a single category. The flexibility returns agency and self-help behavior into the hands of the recipient.
All this needs to be tempered against the progress[1] we are making against poverty. I know it's a lot to ask the poor to be patient, but I do think there's an element of knowing that a lot of good people are trying really hard to alleviate the situation can help with the mostly mental elements of the article
> No matter how fast you run or how high you jump you can never see the finish line. No matter how tired you are the ground keeps moving.
eg: this statement is not actually a fact, it's a mindset
Overall, this is a big big testament to the overall worldview that I think is missing, just how impactful choices actually are. Some of these kinds of stories start generations ago, some of them start with the individual themselves having spent excess in the past that could have taken them through the low times (kind of "a waste not, want not" scenario). Some folks had opportunity and squandered it. Some flipped tails (failing scenario) 20 times in a row... People don't really want to help the former, but definitely the latter.
Now do homelessness and make it over the past 20 years.
Now do chances a child makes it to their 20s over the past 20 years.
Now do suicides.
No, we are not making progress on poverty, at least not in the United States. We are simply trading one problem for another. Progress has entirely stopped since essentially the 1990s, and things have gotten much much worse in the past 5 years.
Torbrowser is a fork of Firefox, not a user. I'm not going to bother looking this up because pigs aren't flying yet, so I'll just state it as fact: the torbrowser fork does not include any of Firefox's AI code or functionality.
For all the issues with power use, I do grant it that a lot of materials and labor in needed at the same time. It isn't JUST burning up cash to make Sora videos.
But by the same measure, the Great Egyptian pyramids would have been a huge boom for work even if the final product didn't achieve much for most people.
Thanks for the correction. The experts think the builders were not slaves. Their life in the barracks was too good for slaves, and similarly were they treated in death (which was specially important there)
They're selling a public asset to the mainstreet dummy, so they can pour money on the AI fire so OpenAI can build more datacenters. This is another vein of circular funding, they're getting their cash from our retirement accounts via institutional investments and index funds.
reply