What if you're able to pinpoint unique loci for an individual or group which can serve as a target of a highly specific bio-weapon? Do you think genomic bio-weapons aren't being explored as future weapons?
If it's not a troll post, I hope the founder gets a solid dose of reality. I mean, if he doesn't take comments like yours to heart and reflects on the absurdity of his worldview, then the narcissism runs deep in that one.
Eh? Homeschooling is a very social activity. I'd argue it's more pro-social than government schools: homeschooled students are learning/ working in more communal environments (e.g. the family home), they spend far less time on busy work, and they tend to have more free time which is then spent on group extracurricular activities.
While many families did jump on homeschooling because of inexpensive computers, online courses and tutors, government schools jumped on online courses, assignments, instructors, etc. even when there is a teacher and two dozen classmates in the room. Government schools are far less pro-social, IME.
To whatever extent AI drives down the cost, it will accelerate the movement toward homeschooling, but I don't see it reducing the prosocial aspects of homeschooling, while it likely will in government schools.
Empirically, home schooled kids are more socially awkward. I have nothing against home schooling, but the kids are definitely more limited in their exposure to different people and situations.
I've not noticed this personally, and have known loads of homeschooled people.
When you say "empirically" though, I'm assuming there some info out there that backs this up? Would love to take a look, as homeschooling is on the table for us.
The FTC is not only stifling innovation by strong-arming companies which produce these tools to limit their capabilities. They're potentially running afoul of the first amendment by imposing restrictions on IP and thus speech.
Can go a step further and consider the 1A protections of generative output.
They're related in that both are downstream of industrialization, but changing climates aren't lessening insect biodiversity as much as overuse of various chemicals are.
Bees live less than a year, so the number of dead bees can surely only be used as an indicator of changes on around that time-scale or shorter. Eventually fewer bees means fewer dead bees.
Nash Equilibrium has nothing to do with efficiency. In fact Prisoner’s Dilemma is the game you’re playing here and the equilibrium is NOT Pareto efficient at all
It's not the only Nash equilibrium. The other Nash equilibrium is that everyone keeps their money in SVB. That would have also been the Pareto optimal Nash equilibrium.
The fact that VCs settled on the suboptimal Nash equilibrium actually reflects poorly on them as a community.
It's not an accident that the "V" is often read as "vulture". The only way to prevent someone from stabbing you in the back is to stab them first.
People often equate finance to gambling, because even the terminologies overlap: you don't make "risky investments", you "place bets". But that's too simplistic a take, because there are two MAJOR differences between finance and gambling.
1: In finance you gamble with other peoples' money. Not your own. And when your bets go the wrong way, you ruin lives of thousands of families. Not just your own.
2: If you manage to find a loophole and turn the letter of a contract against the spirit of the contract, in finance that's a cause for celebration and a big bonus. ("Well played.") In gambling, that's called a breach of regulations.
An INDIVIDUAL payoff. Not the global one. By your argument, nothing stops the nuclear powers from destroying themselves. Yet somehow in the 60s the nuclear powers figured out the mutually assured destruction is also a prisoner’s dilemma and they COOPERATE despite the individual payoff being greater.
No, because if everyone else keeps their money in SVB and it avoids going under, there is no payoff for defecting - you simply disrupt your own operations for no reason by trying to switch banks.
That isn't the case. To continue the concert analogy, the concert hall had more than enough doors to let everyone out if people left in their usual walking pace, but some doors were locked and the security was paying someone to unlock them. People took this as a sign that they should sprint to the gates.
The bank has failed and those with deposits in excess of 250k have not been guaranteed and cannot withdraw now what are you talking about? The bank failed!! lol. If one had withdrawn fast enough, they have their money; those who waited lost.
The analogy is, it doesn't matter, those who didn't leave quickly got stampeded and died. Anyone who had huge amounts of cash in excess of the FDIC limit sitting there is an idiot. Doubly so if they heard of the "run" and did nothing.
As long as Fed has rates way way above 0% checking accounts, the gravity is going to pull deposits out of banks and into US Treasuries.
I've been withdrawing personal and business account cash for months and rolling in short term treasuries, many others are too as commercial bank deposits have been declining at record pace this year. Now this bank run. Anyone over the FDIC limit + those who begin to notice the interest rate differential (so..safety plus excess returns) are going to be incentivized to pull money out. This might not be the last bank failure... even if technically there is not danger on paper, human psychology will probably dictate that more will withdraw.
The rational choice is clear in this situation: anyone with excess deposits should move quickly. Who cares if nothing else breaks? Better to do it and not need to, than to need to but not do it.
You completely misunderstand the situation. The bank failed because of the bank run. It’s unlikely any depositors are going to lose their money because the bank was not insolvent. They’re going to get 50-60% of their deposits by Monday or Tuesday.
*OBVIOUSLY* the bank failed because of the bank run. What the hell does that have to do with the pertinent question of: was it rational to withdraw? Those that panicked first won. Those that didn't lost.
A bank run is a self fulfilling prophecy driven by irrational fear. It is, by definition, irrational. It also doesn’t happen much any more because most banks aren’t susceptible to them (ie. have 90%+ deposits uninsured).
You are just plain wrong that withdrawing was the wrong choice. What about those needing to make payroll or pay other expenses in the mean time? When will they get their money back? You have no idea lol
The bank failed. It has been closed. It was a bank failure. Here's the official source that calls it a "failed bank" [0]
Please calm down with the FUD. We both agree its dead. This doesn't mean its assets vanished. It will be liquidated and the proceeds will be returned to the creditors (deposit holders). The assets are sufficient to make the depositors whole.
