Honestly I don't find most adjustments that complicated as long as you think about it economically rather than pulling a formula out thin air e.g. think about how you arbitrage it if it wasn't adjusted.
Equities and (listed) commodities are relatively easy to get a handle on but it genuinely takes months / years even at the frontline to understand how fixed income and FX works because its still almost entirely an OTC market. There is more central clearing than ever before but e.g. if I (say) buy a bond, fund it using a repo, swap my loot back some other currency, quite a lot of this could easily still be relying on humans pressing buttons and wiring money around.
To learn how and why these things are traded, however, read this book, the only (good) truly beginners guide to fixed income:
People turning up in hedge funds (i.e. much smaller) and trying to rewrite the bit of a bank they used to work in's equivalent of this article is so annoying.
Lamport phrases this as "Thinking doesn't guarantee we will be right; not thinking guarantees we will be wrong" - specifications are for reasoning about systems in the deepest sense
So I think one of the main failure modes of vibe coding is that unless you have a very aggressive approach the onus is pretty much solely on the developer for the code to be good.
The volume of code, addiction to said volume of code, and fact that the vibe coder may not have read it basically makes review impossible both logistically and in that IME it seems to upset the vibe coder to even suggest that it's fine to take a bit longer and do something good as opposed to some overfit mess.
It might be that we look back on this as like trying to review the assembly output of a compiler but I don't see it that way at the moment.
I increasingly agree with the spirit of this. I'm not even convinced that they'll never be able to "program" I just find that these tools are to midwits what flame is to a moth and destroy the systems-thinking that drives good engineering (as opposed to merely coding)
You have to be good enough to know what to ask for but not good enough to ask yourself what is needed next, or to say no to it - for example, you can fairly easily ask an agent to write small changes and so on, almost no one does.
Management are also seem the most prone to psychosis (IMO at least) e.g. if you are a once-technical manager it probably feels great to kind of being doing programming again with a minion who doesn't eat lunch?
I am yet to meet more than probably 2 vibe coders who uses their newfound "productivity" to try _new_ things as opposed to just pump out correct-looking slop - the problem here isn't just that there is now more code, but also that for some strange reason people seem to choose to automate the thinking as well as the coding.
I am yet to see any AI driven productivity around me. They can definitely turn a days work into a lot less time, this is magical, but I'm yet to see any "real" projects be delivered in a timeframe that's particularly different to what they would've taken previously.
One canary I have for Linux vs Windows is whether Bloomberg ever support Linux natively on the terminal. You can actually use the API from inside WSL quite easily already.
If it was the most expensive it wouldn't transact at that price, the price clears roughly to minimise excess demand i.e. gas is often the energy you can actually at a given time.
So what if it's a cold night with no wind? I'm not saying renewables aren't cheap, I'm saying that you can't fully construct a grid on them and that this has not been communicated.
Our energy is expensive and volatile because of this (and subsidies to implement it). You don't seem to be capable of following my argument. It's not a free lunch. Renewables are also slightly problematic for grid stability although I expect we will have enough fast storage / (possibly synthetic) inertia eventually.