I looked into somehow hedging against the Mag 7 in my portfolio (which is otherwise almost entirely in an S&P 500 index fund), but it seemed surprisingly difficult for something that is probably quite widely desired.
Though maybe I'm just unsophisticated. And it feels a little hopeless because there's no telling how long the smoke and mirrors will continue working, and whenever it stops, undoubtedly the rest of the economy is going to suffer, too. Bleh.
Investments can never be identical for everyone, but in my case I switched my assets from an MSCI World to an MSCI World ex USA.
For the U.S. market portion I adopted a more complex strategy based on factor / smart-beta investing (making sure that none of the top holdings include AI-related companies).
I'm not completely divested but I'm buying some VFVA as my non-tech fund.
Top holdings are CVS, Verizon and FedEx all at 0.8%. Basically normal companies.
It's amazing how traditional companies have done in comparison to the top of the S&P500 (or really the top S&P10). So I feel the need to buy the other stuff in case the top S&P10 is a bubble.
I’ll add to this, no politician is on your side unless it means getting your vote to keep them in power. It’s hard to be an actual good person and get too far up in politics, especially in today’s environment.
So, yes, I believe they both want tracking to exist, because they both benefit massively from it.
I would add, some politicians are on your side on select matters, most are not.
Sad thing is people ignore a politician's actions and keep applying Yes or No to their marketing statements. They use social engineering wording just to get votes and then they will ignore that standing to support their own action of legislation crafting and voting.
By block and limiting access to information, such as Wikipedia, they are advocating for a dumb populous. Irony is that in order to have a strong national security, an educated populous is needed. They are the ones see beyond the easily deployed social engineering tactics and are better at filtering out misinformation.
So, this cut out the least fit for work. One group heavily cut out would be those without work experience such as kids and other first entering the marketplace.
Fast food is a stepping stone job, and if employeers have to pay more for labor then they will be pickier about it.
Let's think about the reverse. If we cut minimum wage, the sector would be much more loose about hiring first time workers, convicts, or people just not fit for other jobs. The people could grow their skills and contribute more to society, a society where low end business constantly complain about how hard it is to find skilled workers.
High minimum wage contributes to more people on social safety nets living on low fixed incomes because the gulf between that and paid employment becomes too great and there is no low wage on ramp for them.
This is a good attempt at a thought experiment but it doesn’t bear out at all in the evidence.
You need a fixed number of people to run a restaurant, there’s only so many positions to be filled. You aren’t hiring on extra people and spending a certain amount on labor, they’ll just pocket any excess.
You can invest in automation but today that’s at a cost higher than paying a living wage and with lower service quality.
> You need a fixed number of people to run a restaurant
What? Just varying restaurant hours changes labour requirements. Menu complexity adds another dimension. Quality of service another. Restaurants are highly variable-cost businesses.
Yep, I feel you. Let me just explain what I want in detail and one little piece at a time, and AI, make my words become code and I will watch you do it to make sure you don't mess up.
I cut out drinks with sugar in them, eating after dinner, and in general just eating healthy meals.
I lift weights about 3 days a week, and am fairly fit strengthwise.
All this lowered my fat levels down to a reasonable level, but still left me with about 23% body fat and a bit of a belly, and that remained consistent. Trying to diet didn't really cause any maintainable change.
What I found has helped is doing a 24 hour fast once a week. This really means just eating one dinner a little earlier (4:30pm) and then skipping breakfast and lunch and drinking water with electrolytes added.
With keeping the rest of the days calorie intake the same, I have shaved off consistently 1 pound a week and 1/2" from my waistline.
This has been going for 5 weeks now, and I have gone from 23% to 19.7% based on navy body fat formula.
What is great is I have no cravings or feelings that I am depriving myself except for the last 8 hrs of the weekly fast. The rest of the week, I eat well.
My plan is to bring myself down to 15% and then continuing to measure. If I get above 15% I fast that week, if I don't then I don't fast, so it basically becomes like a controllable throttle.
> Trying to diet didn't really cause any maintainable change.
That's not a surprise. Changing diet composition can in the short-run lead to lower caloric intake than what preceeded (e.g. SAD diet), but doesn't guarantee a sustained caloric deficit, which is why controlling for macros like fat or carbs eventually hits a wall. What are you going to do when there are no more carbs to cut? If you have a lot of excess to lose, you can't "intuitively" eat your way down to your target.
The fasts work similarly owing to deficit: a fasted day lowers the average caloric intake for the week (assuming you don't overcompensate other days). As with macros, here again, what are you going to do to increase deficit further? Fast for 48 hours? If with a fast your caloric intake isn't dropping further week-to-week, weight loss will stagnate.
Whichever approach, one of the pitfalls is steep deficit followed by metabolic adaptation i.e. crashing metabolism. This is why it's helpful to keep a small caloric deficit, and incrementally change your intake target. That is only reliably achieved by tracking calories.
I use Cursor as an agent and sometimes I use autocomplete. Both tools are dependent on what you are doing at the moment. I like autocomplete when I am focused in tight on one file. I spell things out in depth in file and start out code and hand pick completions. It brings my mind in sharp on what I am doing. Agent is when I am doing big but simple stuff where I am crafting less in detail. Refactoring and setting up tests and basic shallow framework code.
But this article is on point. All of things listed are more impactful than LLMs
I've been using vim forever, and often use "advanced" editing techniques: macros, .-repeat, :g/.../norm ..., occasional templates.
For certain projects I'd used `vscode` (with the vim plugin!), and there's definitely some helpful bits. The biggest helper for me is/was the `F2-rename-symbol` capability. Being able to "rename" securely in the whole file (or function), and across the project is super-useful.
Working with Cursor and the autocomplete is (often) pretty shockingly good. eg: when I go to rename `someVar` to `someOtherVar`, it'll prompt to `<tab>` and:
* rename the function call
* edit the log lines
* rename the return object value
* ...etc...
In vim, I'd `*` to automatically search for `someVar`, then `cwsomeOtherVar`, (change-word), then `n.n.n.` (next, repeat, etc.)
...so my overhead (by keystrokes) is `*` (search), `cw` (change word), (`n.`) next-and-change. Five "vim" characters, and I mentally get to (or have to) review each change place.
In straight `vscode`, I can do `F2-rename` and that'll get me replace _some_ of the variables (then I still have to rename the log lines, etc).
With Cursor, I make the `cw...` and it's 90%+ accurate in "doing what I probably also want to do" with the single `<tab>` character.
It gets even more intriguing where you'll say `s/foo/fooSorted/` and it automatically inserts the `\*.sort()` call, or changes it to call `this.getFooSorted()` or `this.getSorted( foo )` or whatever.
For "cromulent" code, cursor autocomplete is "faster than vim". For people that can't type that good, or even that can't program that good, it's a freaking god-send. Adding in the `Agent...` capabilities (again, for "cromulent" code)... if you're just guiding it along: "Now, add more tests" => "Now 50% more cowbell!" => "Whoops, that section would be more efficient if you cached stuff outside the loop."
Even then, I have to have some empathy with the AI/Agent coding, "Hey... you messed up that part (btw, I probably would have messed up that part the first time through as well...)". We can't hold them to gold standards that we wouldn't meet either, but treating them as "helpful partners" really reduces the mental burden of typing in EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER by yourself.
I'd describe myself the same as you did in your first paragraph here, and wanted to say that with LSP, your "rename function call" example in vim (well, I switched to neovim some years ago) is (mostly) `<Leader>rn` (default in my LSP setup, I'll paste the relevant line below) when the cursor is on the symbol. That will change the name in all open buffers. Annoying thing is that it doesn't (ofc) change the name in "log lines", so it's helpful to pre-`*` on the symbol name so you can go back and `n.n.n.`. (I've always wanted to "wire up" something to also detect those log lines and change them at the same time, but... ya know.)
The line in my nvim config that sets up the LSP "rename" is:
I mention this because in spite of using vim/neovim for over 20 years, I still learn new things (from HN comments and elsewhere) -- which is part of why I love it.
I don't know if you've ever messed with `ctags`, but I used that a long while back with a crufty, large, PERL codebase.
It was super nice to have "jump-to-definition", but the vim plugin in vscode is very nice (missing a few things, but even `<c-w>hjkl` "does the right thing(!) so they're really trying).
I haven't leaped to nvim (yet?), and the fact that vscode kindof "just works" has prevented me from chasing LSP support or setting up the more "advanced" features, but thanks for sharing!
I'd be fantastical if something similar to that cursor autocomplete were available in a "real" cli-vim. There's things that really bug me about the "hover suggestions" (eg: can't always tell which characters/lines are "real" or "suggested", especially with auto-closing double-quotes suggestions), but when I occasionally drop to a terminal vim for "accurate" editing, I really do find myself missing like "I should just be able to tab-complete the rest of these edits..." and I don't know how to express that in an appropriate "editor" context?
Maybe lean on like a `vimdiff` representation, where you could `:vsplit $ASSISTANT` and accept suggested diffs? (Hmmmmm....)
Probably some super fuzzy thesaurus that will take your words, and create a weighted list of words that are similar to them and so some search matching going down the weighted lists.
Maybe also, they take those queries that needed lots of fuzziness to get to the answer, and track what people click to relate the fuzzy searches to actual results. Keep in mind, what you might think is a super unique "tip of tongue" question, across billions of searches, might not be that unique.
Building a search system to find things can be much more optimized than making an AI to return an answer, especially when you have humans in the loop that can tweak things based on analytics data.
Yep, I got the same exact dishwasher because it was highly rated, and noped out of connecting it to the cloud.
The only buttons I press though are power and start. Just make my dishes clean oh magic cleaning box.
I also hate the touch buttons too. My favorites were the old washers with the big clicking square block buttons. I also like for the modes when you pushed one down, the others would pop up.
Of course this was about 40 years ago, and such things are ancient history.
When reality comes to the table it isn't going to be pleasant.
reply