But academia is better because your paper has your name on it and when the bias somehow resolves itself then people would know you were right, even though you might be dead by the time it happens.
People in academia are still humans and as you said they have biases but they also try to play the biases to elevate themselves.
However the cumulative look at a paper during the course of decades and centuries are bound to sniff BS and unmask it
This is different than say trading in financial markets where biases are always there and the issue never resolves itself, just companies and CEOs come and go.
> Don't you think he's got some merit considering he's climbed the ladder with successful exit after successful exit and now is #1/#2 richest person on Earth? Do you think his decision making is all fluke?
Exits are fine for your buddy smoking pot on the beach as you look back at the past 3 years running a company before the acquisition by a bigger fool who you managed to screw over.
Richest man in the world should be a guy who can walk away from the company and sell 15-20B dollars worth of shares per year and the company does just fine, with an AAA+ Credit rating. Namely:
Jeffrey Preston Bezos
William Henry Gates III
Warren Edward Buffett
Lawrence Edward Page
These are serious people, Musk is just one of us who is constantly winging it and hit it big with the constant pumping, cult of personality and frankly fraud. Matter of fact he can't walk away.
The CEO of Amazon simply can't afford rockets blowing up publicly like the CEO of Tesla can. Even if that is a separate company doesn't change the fact that the face of the franchise cannot fail, even if those are parallel efforts.
This is all there is to it. Musk feels like he can't transition to wealth and status preservation mode yet...whereas Bezos has a company with the same credit rating as the US Govt. and can dump 15B worth of shares per year and leave the company without Amazon suffering any repercussions.
The judge is still out on Musk, none of his companies ever made any money . His method up to now was to pump the company and sell into bigger fools.
Bezos stepping down and distancing himself from Amazon should provide new lift (no pun intended) and much more risk taking to Blue Origin.
We should all remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It's not like the frentic months of the software wars where Apple put together the iPhone and its app ecosystem in 48 months and others never caught it.
It should also be pointed out that this is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink). Software/Cloud tier margins are a mirage.
Bezos should learn from Google and understand that there is no shame in killing a project....but I suspect the ego wars against Musk are too big now.
Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
The argument around wealth taxes is that we tax lottery winnings, hence we should tax this sort of things.
Bill Gates was a fanboy of a company called Digital Equipment which he predicted would be the next big thing. Stuff went the other way for them and Microsoft emerged instead.
There is very little agency in these massive net worth stashes
People who are smart already know this. Doge developers refute to bow down and genuflect to Musk even though his net worth is 1,000,000 times theirs.
Andy Jassy not like he'd not confront and get in heated arguments with Bezos even though his net worth is 300x his own.
It's people who buy into the propaganda and Republicans who elevate these people as they were divine beings. They are just smart people who got outsized returns because of luck....a wealth tax would just mimic the mechanism of taxes on lottery winnings
Every collectable item which is digital and not physical must be played on a digital support to be enjoyed (duh) . Once you have to play the content to enjoy it then it can be ripped/screenshoted and shared for free as we all know. Do you have to pay now to use the "disaster girl" image which sold for 500k? Hell no!
The possible exception being VR painting by Anna and others
1) The Internet will be the thing which causes our extinction due to self inflicted depression via comparison with others. Humans were never meant to live in a community of 10 billion individuals and have the constant reminder that there are so many people you are de-facto competing against.
2) Humanity doesn't progress at the rate it used to because there is a lack of arrogance and self confidence within humans themselves.
Humans used to get an idea and immediately try it out, those people who'd succeed would then be socially elevated and their idea would be copied and quickly become common practice. Nowadays humans don't have the same arrogance, they now understand the concept of opportunity cost and thus want to be the person slightly improving something already existing opposed to try out the crazy idea they have.
It becomes a tragedy of the commons where if everybody acts on their crazy idea then society would look like the Jetsons very quickly, but at the same time the temptation to play conservatively and let other people take the risks of doing so and enjoying the societal benefit is tempting.
3) The decline of violence is not a positive thing per se, engaging in a physical altercation is an indicator that there is some of that arrogance left within ourselves. If you are arrogant enough to engage in a bar brawl you won't have problems betting your money and time on a idea you came up with
4) The decline in consumption of cigarettes, cocaine and other stimulants is an indicator that risk taking is declining.
5) A reasonable amount of "toxic masculinity" is desirable, because women can't approach and thus if males don't try and get laid then no sex happens and thus no reproduction happens. Japan is a prime example. An interaction where a guy tries to kiss a woman after they have talked for 2 hours at the bar is acceptable, so is a rejection and he should accept that and move on to another target.
It's a 2 way street. Fed can drop rates to zero but still people are too risk averse and have a negative outlook so they won't seek to submerge themselves with debt.
Q1: What are the financial rewards to solve climate change?
Q2: What are the social rewards in terms of status to solve climate change and who is best positioned to get it?
A1: Financial rewards are very slim because margins are very slim. You have to build stuff for real, it can't be solved via software...building real stuff is a disgusting business to be in.
A2: Given that the business is disgusting at least can you get some status out of it? Musk managed to do so up until today, but now the heavyweights are coming (POTUS, VP, Central Bankers, UN, EU commissioners, Prime Ministers all around the world).
These people (unlike Musk) have much better social competence and amazing speaking capabilities. They will outframe Musk just like JFK and Neil Armstorng outframed whoever was the director of the Apollo program. As they do that the narrative which enabled him to be the world savior and have his stock appreciate would simply go away.
He'd be left with a low margin business and no glory, my guess is that Neuralink is his parachute to stay relevant financially and socially. There the margins are software tier and the heavyweights haven't arrived to that social arena yet.
Well then it ain't A-list anymore isn't it?