Or how about your opinions on yourself? Analysis of your own behavior, done by AI, seems like a a decade of therapy provided by a maybe-good-or-bad psychologist happening in minutes. The impact of that could change how you think about the world by reinforcing biases you hold or weakening strengths by making you self conscious.
Ultimately you run the risk of having a computer program redefine who you are as a human and that begs the question of whether you’re really you after that?
It’s no coincidence that everything from energy sources to civil rights to military strategy to trade policy struggle to evolve from the same era the US became a super power, 1945-1955. Its downfall is its nostalgia for that period.
You can trade on non-public information if you obtain that information unintentionally. Now you have to be able to prove it’s unintentional if the question came up. A real experience example of this is if you work in an office building and your neighboring company, a public company, is being raided by the FBI. Can you use that information to take a position in the market? Yes, according to multiple attorneys we spoke with.
I bring this up because we assume the trading is coming from insiders but I wonder if the parties behind this have baked in a layer similar to my story above.
To close this back to your comment, and I don’t have an answer here: is knowing who the insiders are and acting on that a crime? If you did know and didn’t report them, are you breaking a law? Or worse, you reported it to the deaf ears of a regulator that are focused elsewhere or are under resourced to respond now?
The robot vote is a critical and quickly growing minority group since Wall-E v Sanders determined that all sentient robots were to be treated as citizens. Immediately after, Citizens United was rendered useless and large corporations moved their investments from campaign finance to literal voting machines.
I am a bit confused with the consistency of this community in speaking about MBA’s running their orgs or PM’s making bad decisions… it feels like more resistance by engineers to learn business than the business side not learning code. What I mean is that what a company values seems to be widely understood and the reaction from HN is “they’re wrong.” If anything, this is the green light for engineers to step into the business side and fix all the complaints they’ve had for decades.
I’m seeing vibe coding redefine what the product manager is doing. Specifically, adding solution execution to its existing strategy and decision making responsibilities. The PM puts solutions in front of a customer and sees what sticks, then hands over the concept to engineering to bake into the larger code base. The primary change here is no longer relying on interviews and research to make product decisions that engineering spends months building only to have flop when it hits market. The PM is being required to build and test dozens of solutions before anything makes its way to engineering resources. How engineering builds the overall solution is still under their control but the fit is validated before it hits their desk.
Couple things to add. First, rates are much lower when you’re leveraging 10,000 homes at 3:1. That allows you to purchase 20,000 additional homes, which isn’t something the normal individual can do. Second, most of this borrowing was done during the 0% interest days and when rates went up after Covid, a lot of the operations grinded to a halt. Third, there’s no regulatory environment for rent rates and rate increases.
I worked with these firms for several years when the business concept was in its earlier stages. The money coming in to buy these homes quickly went from family offices (2013-2019) to state pension funds (2019-present) to sovereign funds (2020-present).
Things like the largest pension fund in Sweden is invested in buying SFR. Or the sovereign fund of the UAE.
I’m not sure if that changed your opinion on this not having practical benefit for the average American.
If this is true, is it just the HN community that understands this? Otherwise, wouldn’t it make sense that the market understands this already and doesn’t fall for the hype? It doesn’t pass the smell test for me that it’s that transparent of a play for hype. What am I missing?
VC still requires startups to find themselves and prove something first. China basically has a program to do X and anyone can sign up to be a part of that program. All are funded and the winners emerge. I’m broadly generalizing that process but that’s not how VC approaches it.
There’s a NYT’s interview several months back where the journalist phrased it as in America, you have to prove success first to get funded. But in China, funding comes first and the successful companies emerge.
Can you speak to the onboarding and learning curve in that environment? What was the training like? What kinds of timelines did you experience regarding expectations as a new hire?
Asking because I’m curious about these early stage mega-tech companies that are working at a scale I can’t fathom.
Ultimately you run the risk of having a computer program redefine who you are as a human and that begs the question of whether you’re really you after that?