analysts are kinda irrelevant when a stock isn't connected to fundamentals anyways

such tools cost 10-20/mo usually?

i'm a big fan of IA and wayback machine. i donate. but i do wish it were faster. i understand that would cost a lot more though.

i wonder if maybe donors above a certain level could get priority on archiving pages or something.

The reason is personal preference. Same reason people buy sports cars. I also wish their preferences were different

Reply to the sibling comment about little to no negative externalities:

Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.

Sports cars largely don't have any of the negative externalities of trucks.

Their fuel consumption is about the same, what externalities are you referring to?

Sure, if you're talking about high-power cars (M2, Corvette, etc). A Miata or Civic Type R will get far better fuel consumption.

And there's also wear on the road, noise, and damage to property and people when accidents happen (physics is a bitch).

Sure, if you’re talking about high-power trucks (F350, Ram 3500). A Ford Maverick hybrid will get far better fuel consumption.

I think more sports cars are burning out, revving loudly (or getting modified to take out their mufflers), and the damage from going a lot faster creates more damage.

It might depend on where you live. Nine times out of then when a vehicle with an obnoxiously loud and high revved gear vehicle drives by it's a truck. Probably more like 95% of the time.

Around here, it's usually beater Accords or other random generic sedans. With fake LEds, slammed to the ground, and lots of dents.

No, you just don’t dislike them enough to find them.

HN has hated Trucks and American cars, except when Tesla came out, for as long as I’ve been here. Same with Reddit.

It's pretty funny how much truck rage there is here.

It’s crazy to me. If you hate automobiles, trucks still make the most sense- if you’re just carrying people and a grocery or two you should probably be on a bike or ebike.

That is quite a European take there. Most places in the US do not have safe pedestrian infrastructure mandating "share the road" policies with bicycles which puts you into direct contact with motor vehicle traffic, and suburban spread means you're probably not close enough to walk to your grocer.

Bikes and cars can easily coexist on streets, and if the street is too big/busy I bet there's a parallel side road that is much better. If you are too lazy to walk to your nearest grocer, ride a bike.

It is true that some sacrifices and brief periods of discomfort must be made if you care for the environment, this is nothing new and generally accepted.

Why wouldn't they have already been looking for a way to make their food more palatable? There was already a lot of money on the line

I think if there were certain foods which, for some reason, aren't as affected by Ozempic-type drugs' (GLP-1 agonists?) appetite suppression effect - and I'm not an expert, but I totally wouldn't be surprised if there was - then I think the food industry would be very interested in finding them.

Because this is the language of the trump administration. Everything needs to be momentus. The good must always be beating an unknown and all powerful enemy

why?

Because the experts weren't cited, and without provenance or review this is just "fancy slop".

this isn't a peer reviewed journal article though. do you have expertise in the field to say whether an expert would be able to decipher this?

I know experts who deciphered this. But I will not tell you their names.

The book is written in Latin, not exactly a dead language.

That isn't what the claim is about. I mean I don't think the source is particularly convincing but the claim is that it figured out the significance of the text not the literal meaning of the words

The interesting claim is that this would be hard for an expert to do, which is basically unsupported outside of anonymous experts who spent an unknown amount of time on the question. It also doesn't quote any experts on whether Gemini's conclusions are reasonable.

I don't think you understand the word "knowledge". Just because an LLM spews out an answer doesn't mean it is correct. It needs to be verified by experts in the field, that's how it becomes factual knowledge. Lord help us that I need to explain this.

I don't think this particular discussion has to do with the idea of knowledge. We're discussing whether human experts had previously deciphered the sections

We are discussing whether the LLM deciphering is accurate. That hasn't been demonstrated as measured by review, provenance, cross-referencing among historical record, etc.

ownership through funds shouldn't count

For sure, it’s just a common conspiracy theory boogeyman from people who don’t know how ETFs work.

BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) team votes even in the name of ETF holders who don't specify their preferences. There are plenty of controversies after reviews of their voting like "voted against a record 91% of all shareholder proposals — and against 93% of those focused on environmental and social issues" (2023). That's from the 2nd result in a simple web search.

Why is that controversial? Is it expected that the majority of shareholder proposals would be things that you would be criticized for not voting for? It's a bit like saying that someone voted against 91% of bills in congress. That could be good if they were bad bills!

They shouldnt be voting at all

you can also do this with JPEGs. se my repo https://github.com/derenrich/hdr-steganography

Depression correlates with dementia. As do many drugs to treat various psychiatric conditions