I hate Trump, but this piece doesn't seem to prove or argue anything at all. It's basically free market fanaticism, it says that economic metrics are good in spite of protectionism and not because of it because how could it be otherwise? Invisible hand, etc. It's totally begging the question.
If the free market economy is so resilient to threats, why didn't it thrive also in 2008?
That's a good question. So, 2008 was a major problem and financial institutions brought that on themselves. But that's - fortunately, even though there were significant knock on effects - limited to one very important slice of the market, not unlike say when Enron went bust or when the .com bust happened. The rest of the free market is what pulled us out of those things.
Free markets are on balance a good thing, assuming a level playing field and regulations to curb externalization and monopolization as well as cartel forming.
So you are arguing for a regulated market, not a free one. Heavy anti-trust legislation and enforcement is needed for a healthy economy. This might lower the year-over-year stock raise but at least keeps the negative excesses somewhat in check (monopolization, power concentration, rent-seeking).
Saying that these are then not free markets is a fairly hardcore libertarian viewpoint, which tries to make it a 'black and white' issue, whereas in reality things are often more nuanced.
So, there are threats and the economic data is fine (like now) -> the free market works great because it works fine in spite of the threats.
There are threats, the economic data falls into the gutter, but eventually recovers (not without real and quite lasting negative consequences for many people) -> the free market works great because hey, if you held SP500 you were still fine in the long run.
It's like a religion. If things go well it's thanks to God, if things go wrong maybe God is testing or punishing you but all will eventually be fine (in the worst case, after death). The free market is a lot like a god for its followers.
I well remember what happened in 2008 (caused by government's deregulation by the way, not "technocratic managerialist", whatever it means).
Despite the severity of what happened, jobs rapidly recovered and were around the same pre-financial crisis levels (and well above US averages) in a matter of few years and workers earnings were at or above 2008 levels (inflation adjusted) by 2016.
All in all, as severe 2008 was, I don't see how free market economy made it more, rather than less severe. It's at best an opinion.
"Caused by government deregulation" could also be phrased as "not prevented by regulation, while caused by financial markets".
The rest of the market recovered quickly once the government re-arranged debt and prevented a full collapse.
But the lesson was that private debt was accumulating too quickly on a shaky basis, catalyzed by financial markets making the issue orders of magnitudes worse. Rapid private debt accumulation is still not discussed enough today for my taste.
I've never tried Pebbles but Huawei also has the same philosophy, mine has 2 weeks battery life and does all I need (which also doesn't include replacing the phone). I don't understand why people would buy watches with 1 or 2 days of battery life.
The Spanish president at the time, Aznar, also "fell for it" (probably didn't believe it but played along just for posturing, because he loved being pictured with Bush) and paid the price domestically. The best thing is that he was such a toady, ignoring the Spanish people's will becuase he wanted to be seen with the big boys and to be their equal, and you don't even remember him when you recall that coalition. The fact that you haven't remembered him has actually made me smile hard.
Blair didn't believe it either. Nobody did. What everyone banked on (including e.g. Hillary Clinton) was that the invasion would be so awe-inspiring, popular and such an obvious unqualified success that everyone who opposed it would be embarrassed, and the WMD claims would quietly be forgotten (or maybe they could scrounge up a trailer with chemicals or something).
And for months, years even, that "can't argue with success" strategy worked great. Some help from a loyal press was necessary, of course.
This is what the architects of this invasion (it's hardly Trump alone) are banking on, too. We WILL get told that suddenly life is so much better for everyone in Venezuela, and for a while it might even be true - it's very cheap for the US to provide, after all. The serious, realistic position will be that this was a shrewd thing to do, and the Nobel Peace prize committee showed great foresight and were vindicated in their choice.
I spent years (maybe a decade) without seeing them in the Windows 7 and early 10 era, but in the last few years I have them sometimes. Many seem Nvidia-related, but I also remember some due to a bad update that broke things in some laptops.
Contrary to the case for the internet, there is a way out, however - if local, open-source LLMs get good. I really hope they do, because enshittification does seem unavoidable if we depend on commercial offerings.
Well the "solution" for that will be the GPU vendors focusing solely on B2B sales because it's more profitable, therefore keeping GPUs out of the hands of average consumers. There's leaks suggesting that nVidia will gradually hike the prices of their 5090 cards from $2000 to $5000 due to RAM price increases ( https://wccftech.com/geforce-rtx-5090-prices-to-soar-to-5000... ). At that point, why even bother with the R&D for newer consumer cards when you know that barely anyone will be able to afford them?
When I was a kid in the 80s scooters weren't a thing in my country, I never saw one, but they did appear in the comics I read (from the 50s-60s). I remember asking my parents about them, and they telling me that they were toys from their time but no longer existed.
Now of course they're very common, my son has one.
> We haven't chosen quantity over quality, we have decided that journals should not be the arbiters of quality.
In CS, this is definitely not the case at all.
If you remove the "quality badge" factor, journals are totally useless. Everyone in my field knows how to use LaTeX, produce a decent-looking PDF and upload it to arXiv. This saves you from paying APC's, has actually better discoverability (everyone checks arXiv as a one-stop shop for papers, almost no one goes to check the dozens of different journals) and much less hassle (no need to fiddle with arcane templates, idiosyncratic paper structures forced by each journal, idiosyncratic submission systems that look straight from the 90s, typesetters that introduce more errors than they fix, etc.).
I am pretty sure that journals, at least in my field, subsist precisely as arbiters of quality, they don't provide any other value at all.
I assume uploading to arXiv doesn't count as having published a peer reviewed journal article, which is a problem for professionals.
For example, for me to progress in my current job I either need a doctorate or to have published a number of peer-reviewed articles in recognised journals as first author. I have written two IETF RFCs and these count for nothing.
I am not a scientist, I am a software developer. I am not employed as a scientist, I am employed as a software developer. But the rules of the organisation are thus.
> I assume uploading to arXiv doesn't count as having published a peer reviewed journal article, which is a problem for professionals.
Yes, in fact this is mainly what I meant with "quality badge". It's a badge mostly for instutitional bean-counting processes. Fellow scientists don't need it that much, typically we can separate the wheat from the chaff with a very quick skim.
Maybe it's time to do a Eurovision style thing for the quality badge. Everyone uploads to Arxiv. Every who's in the field votes on the worthiest papers (not allowed to vote for anyone you actually collaborated with).
Winners get to put a shiny sticker on their papers.
Semantic Scholar is for search, but you can't just go there and look at everything that has been uploaded today as you do in arXiv, right? I know many people who check arXiv every day (myself included) but not Semantic Scholar, although I guess this might be highly field-specific.
What follows is totally offtopic, but to be honest I don't check Semantic Scholar much because I have a grudge with it. Profiles just don't work for authors with accented characters in the name (such as myself), papers get dispersed between multiple automatically-generated profiles. The staff is very helpful and will manually merge profiles for me when asked, but then I publish a new paper and wham, instead of incorporating it into the merged profile the system creates a new one. This has been going on for 6 years (if not more) and still unfixed.
For all the criticism that Google Scholar gets, I highly prefer it because it gets that right. It's extremely annoying when tools give you extra work for committing the sin of not having an Anglo-Saxon name (this is much more common than unaffected people would expect) and just don't seem to care to fix it.
In my field, arXiv (free preprint server) is actually much more discoverable than journals. It tends to be on top of Google searchers, many people (myself include) check it out daily, and few people even check journals (why would you check dozens of different ones if everyone posts their work on arXiv?).
Ev Fedorenko is a highly recognized cognitive scientist that has been studying how humans parse language for years.
Of course this doesn't mean one shouldn't question what she says (that would be an obvious authority fallacy), but I do think it's fair to say that if you want to question it, the argument should be more elaborate that "this sounds like she has no idea of the topic".
I'm not the person you responded to, but I found the article unreadable because it kept going on about Ev’s life instead of her research. I'm sure her research is valuable and insightful, but with this style of reporting it is both inaccessible to me, and it gives me the (probably flawed) impression that her research isn't the part of her life that's supposed to be important or impressive.
FWIW, that's soft of the way a lot of physics books (not textbooks) approach the subject: Einstein/ Heisenberg/ Bohr/ Pauli/ Feynman/ Oppenheimer was this kind of person, oh, and by the way he came up with this theory of X. Apparently a lot of people like that way of presenting science, but it's not for everyone.
If the free market economy is so resilient to threats, why didn't it thrive also in 2008?
reply