This is exactly why the takeoff clearances say “RNAV xxx, cleared for takeoff”. It’s a last confirmation, right before takeoff, of which departure procedure to use.
No, regular web search will just give you links. You have to click and go read the text. Putting together a comprehensive page of (seemingly) cogent arguments will need GenAI.
People like this will go and click those pages, and seek out communities that will agree with their preconceived notions.
ChatGPT results are just one mild manifestation of it. If and actually not if as an alternative they will find unhinged forums with echo chambers far worse than ChatGPT. At least ChatGPT isn't actively trying to rip you off to sell those supplements, and it usually adds disclaimers.
You can probably even in worse ways find likeminded communities, which are likely much more unhinged than ChatGPT and lead you down a much darker path.
There is likely enough existing information out and discussion out there. But ultimately he must have found it somewhere that this supplement could help, to go to ChatGPT with it.
I think the big difference is that with web search there will be a couple of reputable sources that will be at/near the top, like web MD and Mayo clinic. I can search and click one of those and be fairly sure it'll be accurate. There is no immediate way with chat gpt for me to know if it is reliable or crank mode.
People today are more able to see people who are doing better than them economically, through social media etc., than at any time in the past. This is a huge contributor to the negative sentiment.
Referrals are valuable when the referrer has worked with you in the past and can vouch for your abilities, experience, work ethic, creativity, etc. with specific details. Generic referrals that provide no information other than “the applicant knows someone who works at the company” are worthless to a hiring manager.
So these pension funds were fine with investing in Fox year after year despite all the other crap Fox News had been spewing, but somehow now they want to sue?
The previous crap didn't lead to a defamation lawsuit. You can't sue for something ill-defined legally as "a complete lack of morals" but you can for recklessly creating liability in a defamation lawsuit.
No, the market sets the interest rate. The government issues bonds to fund the government, and they have to offer an interest rate high enough to get buyers for all of the bonds they are selling.
This gets to crux of the matter — market power. Some countries have greater power than ‘the market’ due to their military reach or trade. The US is an extreme example — international trade is largely conducted in their currency and they will and have used their hegemonic military power to maintain that. The USD interest rate is set fundamentally by the Fed. Even other sovereign states with less geopolitical power can also maintain their interest rates by their central banks voting what rate to set them at. The market effect, for them, tends to be the foreign exchange rate of their currency will vary to offset the change in interest rate. That will have some market related limits and is why many countries tend to follow the US Fed’s interest rate decisions. To address the technical aspect of ‘finding borrowers’ the central banks of their own currency tend to be the borrower of last resort and this is why the market moves to the rate that the Fed sets — because the values of existing debt will move
And who sets the Fed’s function? The construction of the market — these very constraints are ideological economic constructions not physics. The government can implement price controls, or tax excess money out of the system. They can introduce a modicum of supply side planning similar to oil reserves to isolate from global market shocks. The fundamentals are that the Fed sets interest rates based on human political considerations — there is no natural law at work here but it’s useful from a politically ideological rhetorical perspective to convince people that there is one-true-way. But the key point here is that the Fed chooses what interest rate that it pays. It can also mint a coin to pay off any outstanding balance. It’s an accounting exercise. The fundamental driving force behind the current accounting mechanism is to place artificial limits on the size of the US government’s involvement in solving US domestic problems
Right, so the point still stands. The Fed is granted the power to literally set the interest rate the US government pays on its debt. Laws that are created through human political means, not natural physical laws. The challenge is that there’s been such a dumbing down of political economic understanding that people have premised their understanding on ‘markets’ being some kind of divine natural law of the universe which blinds debate, arguably intentionally, away from what is possible to what satisfies vested interests
You’ve highlighted my point about the dumbing down of political economic debate. There’s very literal difference between “market is fundamental natural law of the universe” and any other belief that’s grounded purely in ideology. They have a role to play in resource allocation, yes, but the idea that resources are allocated optimally through blind belief is a poor substitute for critical thought about how they are and can be harnessed, and what effect that has on the real world. One that exists outside of a bunch of bits in a database. It also allows the folks who do have influence over the laws that govern markets the ability to lean on the scales to their own favour
> The Federal Open Markets Committee sets the federal funds rate—also known as the federal funds target rate or the fed funds rate—to guide overnight lending among U.S. banks.
Why does the interest rate end up being close/near/the same as the overnight lending rate the Fed sets? Because why would anybody want any kind of risk when you can get XYZ interest rate risk free overnight short term?
Isn’t this reversing cause and effect? Corporations are able to raise prices because consumers are willing to pay higher prices. Corporations always want to make as much profit as they can. If consumers can pay more, you get inflation.
Competition should drive down prices even if consumers have deep pockets.
This suggests that the US market has gotten less competitive. I wonder how much it has to do with ownership of competing firms by a few large index funds with concentrated voting power.
Don't forget supply and demand works on the capital side of the equation too, higher inflation means shareholders push for higher profits in the same way that high inflation causes workers to push for higher wages.
There's increasing supply of investments at higher rate of return, bond yields are close to 4% which means riskier investments need to pay more to compete.
Absolutely. But for competitors to raise margins bilaterally requires cooperation, because each side can take market share by keeping prices low.
I just wonder if the cooperation might come in the form of, say, one powerful shareholder of both competitors making calls to the boards of directors of both competing companies.
Is this really the case though? All shareholders are pushing for higher returns because of inflation, it's not an indication of collusion, it's an indication that the market conditions have changed.
As I said on the flip side the fact that all workers are pushing for higher salaries isn't a reflection of collusion between different sets of workers, it's just a reflection of the new economic conditions on the ground.
Shareholders are always pushing for higher returns, inflation or not. The thing is that normally Pepsi and Coke would be preventing each other from raising margins. In a hypothetical state of perfect competition, where Pepsi and Coke are perfect substitutes and customers have no loyalty, and with constant or declining marginal costs at scale, Coke increasing their profit margin by 1% without Pepsi doing the same would result in Pepsi eventually taking the entire market from them. And if they both raise margins, that should result in a third party taking the entire market. Obviously this isn't as good for soda shareholders as if all soda companies raised margins at the same time, but game theory is supposed to prevent that kind of cooperation, and keep every company at their competitors' throats.
However, if both companies had enough shareholders in common -- or just one big shareholder in the Soda Index -- then they sort of stop being competitors, and just become brands.
Only if the competition thinks the increase in share is worth more than the increase in per unit profit.
And depending on the industry, there might not be much more to be gained by scaling up. Going from 45% to 60% of the market might not be more profitable than an extra few percent per unit.
Perhaps, but that's sort of like pointing to the prisoner's dilemma and saying "clearly, the best and easiest option for both prisoners is to both cooperate, thus achieving the best outcomes for both".
We usually expect that competitors would try to compete, and going from 5% to 10% market share would result in getting undercut so badly that you lose far more customers than the higher margins are worth. It's not so easy to hand-wave the reasons why that hasn't happened here.
Well no, there is no real dilemma, because unlike the prisoners you can change your choice at any time.
You can do research and make a decent guess at the units sold at a price point of you only make a small increase, and then your competition does the same, and as long as you can all keep pushing the price each small increase is absorbed.
This is essentially a mechanism for discovering inflation, it continues step by step until people stop buying.
The "and then your competition does the same" is precisely what I'm talking about. If their input costs have not gone up, there's no reason they need to do follow in step rather than take your customers away. It doesn't matter whether it happens gradually.
Multilateral increase in margins demonstrates a lack of competitiveness between competitors.
It's similar, but when the price of the product is closer to the willingness to pay, market share becomes important again.
It's also has an impact on what products get made, and investment in r&d. If you fall behind the competition in terms of quality, you loose marketshare.
This is a complete different problem. The theory in the case of youtube was that the collective downvoting was in someways spurred by being able to see the total. They didn't remove the ability to downvote, just the reward for doing so. Users are not penalized for downvoting.
In the case of steam users are negatively impacted by a moderation decision.
While I respect the contrast you're highlighting I disagree that they're therefore fundamentally different. In both cases its a form of social coercion to shape user behaviour to misrepresent the collective sentiment.
If it was a regular thing, perhaps. In this case it's collateral damage and not policy. Hanlon's law applies here -- it's far more likely to be incompetence than malice.
There are plenty of other negative reviews on that game.
The goal of the feature removal is obviously to hide (censor) the displeasure of the audience towards certain videos, so I disagree that it is unrelated.
