I've managed to catch it in really silly errors. One time I asked it for a libertarian argument against deregulation of fintech, and it immediately got confused and gave me a libertarian argument for the deregulation of fintech.
(A libertarian argument against the deregulation of fintech would be that because the banking sector is so heavily regulated and so heavily subsidized and so heavily insured by the taxpayer that deregulating fintech without deregulating the rest of finance including removing insurance and government guarantees presents moral hazard that potentially could cause government to increase in scope as the deregulated fintech industries rely more on government insurance and assurances than were originally envisioned by the people who created those programs with only traditional banking in mind.)
(A libertarian argument against the deregulation of fintech would be that because the banking sector is so heavily regulated and so heavily subsidized and so heavily insured by the taxpayer that deregulating fintech without deregulating the rest of finance including removing insurance and government guarantees presents moral hazard that potentially could cause government to increase in scope as the deregulated fintech industries rely more on government insurance and assurances than were originally envisioned by the people who created those programs with only traditional banking in mind.)
I tend to agree with you. It's impressive how much ChatGPT gets right, but even as much as it gets right ultimately it's clear when you're reading its output.
I also find it's sort of stubborn such that if it's messing something up it's really hard to get it to stop.
I also find it's sort of stubborn such that if it's messing something up it's really hard to get it to stop.
People blame the young for not having kids, but (as I've mentioned in another post), rents have gone up stratospherically, as well as food, as well as energy, as well as transportation, meanwhile wages have stagnated. In an environment like that, it's totally rational not to have kids because a responsible individual knows they can't afford it.
Historically, periods of economic decline for the common man like we're in tend to lead to bad outcomes. One of the most famous examples would be the french revolution, the russian revolution, the iranian revolution(though arguably that was a glowie op), and some of the revolutions in the 2010s in africa and the middle east, not to mention the coup in sri lanka.
Historically, periods of economic decline for the common man like we're in tend to lead to bad outcomes. One of the most famous examples would be the french revolution, the russian revolution, the iranian revolution(though arguably that was a glowie op), and some of the revolutions in the 2010s in africa and the middle east, not to mention the coup in sri lanka.
This story has two completely different reactions depending on which allegations are actually true.
Seems to me it really depends on the king.
The best thing a monarch can do is establish ironclad rules of succession. There's a huge number of examples where a ruler sets up ironclad rules of succession and in doing so ends centuries of conflict over who gets to be the supreme ruler, which often leads to eras of relative stability where resources are focused on more important things than fighting over a chair.
The best thing a monarch can do is establish ironclad rules of succession. There's a huge number of examples where a ruler sets up ironclad rules of succession and in doing so ends centuries of conflict over who gets to be the supreme ruler, which often leads to eras of relative stability where resources are focused on more important things than fighting over a chair.
It's easy to look backwards. If you're looking forwards, that's the trick.
What are these companies seeing?
What are these companies seeing?
But when the financial system is set up so that every day the dollars you save are worth less than they were yesterday, and lately significantly so, how exactly are you supposed to keep up? With sound money, your argument is sensible. When the government is printing more money than exists in short periods of time, when debt levels soar among governments, companies, and individuals driving up prices, how do you make sure you keep your money in a form you can retire with?
If you had $100,000 last year, then you have $90,000 in buying power this year. And that's with numbers that are unquestionably fudged. Critical stuff like food, shelter, and energy is up way more than a mere 10%. My first house rental was for $775/mo. That was about 12 years ago. Today, you can't get the same house for less than $2,000/mo.
This is happening in large part because of banks creating money in overwhelming amounts, driving us further into debt, which drives up prices and our cost of living, driving us further into debt.
Once you realize how it all works, it's enormously parasitic.
If you had $100,000 last year, then you have $90,000 in buying power this year. And that's with numbers that are unquestionably fudged. Critical stuff like food, shelter, and energy is up way more than a mere 10%. My first house rental was for $775/mo. That was about 12 years ago. Today, you can't get the same house for less than $2,000/mo.
This is happening in large part because of banks creating money in overwhelming amounts, driving us further into debt, which drives up prices and our cost of living, driving us further into debt.
Once you realize how it all works, it's enormously parasitic.
Here's what I don't get: They're your bank. They already have your bank account. They don't need to create another product to access your bank account, they have all the products to access your bank account...
Maybe someone should talk to some black people who aren't directly working for the government and ask if they love the lgbt community.
Are you sure they benefit, or do we just think they do because that's how it's been done in our lifetime?
Especially considering that it's really questionable as to whether the next few generations will be able to retire...
Especially considering that it's really questionable as to whether the next few generations will be able to retire...
I had to write a job ad for a technical position, and instead of asking for a certain number of years experience, I just listed all the things they'd have to do. Compared to previous instances where we sort of went with a job ad that was more fitting with the usual orthodoxy, we got tons of good applicants, and I had to turn away really good applicants which isn't something I had the luxury to do previously.
Fact is, people complain about getting 1000 applicants, but usually you can look at the applications and realize over 99.9% of those applicants aren't really qualified for the job. The key is to try to get the people who are actually qualified to say "Oh! I can do this! I should apply!", since those are the people who will actually add value in the role.
Fact is, people complain about getting 1000 applicants, but usually you can look at the applications and realize over 99.9% of those applicants aren't really qualified for the job. The key is to try to get the people who are actually qualified to say "Oh! I can do this! I should apply!", since those are the people who will actually add value in the role.
Although I don't follow Confucianism, one important detail of their ideology puts farmers at the top of the civilian hierarchy.
We don't live in an agrarian society like ancient China, but I think the idea of putting the people who actually do things on a pedestal is smart. People who package up financial instruments may make a lot of money, but to consider people who play magic tricks with dollars more important than people who make the things we use every day is a decadent and broken society imo...
We don't live in an agrarian society like ancient China, but I think the idea of putting the people who actually do things on a pedestal is smart. People who package up financial instruments may make a lot of money, but to consider people who play magic tricks with dollars more important than people who make the things we use every day is a decadent and broken society imo...
Yeah, and that's where I always figured the "everything store" and everything that comes with it is sort of a loss leader. Go ahead and lose money on the store, you're actually selling server space with the store as an example that your server space can do anything you want to do.
I've suspected for a long time that a lot of things we think of as normal are subsidized by all the investment money floating around which causes companies to make all their products loss leaders to drive up revenues.
I've written at length a few times about it, but one example I wrote about yesterday was sending 4 boxes out. It cost me over $100 to ship them out, but amazon shipped them to my house for free. They're selling a $100 bill for free to drive up volumes and revenues, but there's no way you can do that forever. It's a 3 day drive from my house to the nearest fulfilment center!
I've written at length a few times about it, but one example I wrote about yesterday was sending 4 boxes out. It cost me over $100 to ship them out, but amazon shipped them to my house for free. They're selling a $100 bill for free to drive up volumes and revenues, but there's no way you can do that forever. It's a 3 day drive from my house to the nearest fulfilment center!