This tool helps you avoid going over your weekly and session Claude subscription limits with a monitor right in the MacOS menubar. It's like a battery indicator but for your Claude usage.
I think the central fallacy is that you're assuming more money makes it easier to achieve higher returns. For the vast majority of finance, you get diminishing returns to scale. There are many investment strategies that have limited capacity, and as you get bigger you either have to dilute or take increasingly risky positions.
The phenomenon's pretty ubiquitous among hedge funds. Tons of funds produce stellar returns at $100 million AUM, then use that track record to grow to a $1 billion+ and all of a sudden put up mediocre results.
Out of curiosity how do you position your screens?
I used to rock dual Thunderbolt displays, but my always felt awkward either turning to the left or turning to the right. Now I now just use monitor, because I like having whatever I'm working on directly in front of me.
> It's based on a CNBC reporter repeating what an unnamed source from Melvin told them
FTA:
> "Melvin Capital has repositioned our portfolio over the past few days. We have closed out our position in GME (GameStop)," the spokesman said in a statement.
Market structure is not the subject of the investigation. Market volatility is. In this case microstructure has absolutely zero to do with the volatility. It was caused by 7 million retail traders simultaneously joining a poorly thought out pump and dump. That would create volatility regardless of the mechanics of how orders are crossed.
> Not saying that did happen, not saying it didn't, but Citadel is central
Spoiler: It didn't happen. Robinhood already publicly confirmed that the issue was them running out of collateral at the clearinghouse. Citadel confirmed that it never stopped accepting orders. The DTC confirmed that it raised the margin on GME, causing Robinhood to near its margin calls. JP Morgan and Goldman confirmed that Robinhood drew down its credit lines. Dozens of other brokers, most without ties to Citadel, restricted trading at the same time citing the same clearinghouse issues. The SEC could easily verify all of this. It would necessitate a giant conspiracy involving hundreds of potential whistle-blowers across a dozen companies all risking jail time. And somehow there's zero evidence of any of it.
This has become the stock market equivalent of QAnon at this point.
It's not too much to ask. But Citadel is not involved in any significant way with the Gamestop fiasco. Any claims to the contrary are crackpot conspiracy theories without any evidence.
Citadel's a market maker that processes a lot of transactions in pretty much every stock in the universe. It'd be like me saying that someone with ties to power company shouldn't investigate the mafia, because the mafia regularly used electricity.
Citadel had nothing to do with the Gamestop meme mania, besides being a market maker that processed a lot of transactions. Anything else you hear is crackpot conspiracy theories with zero evidence.
It'd be like saying "Why is this official with ties to Toyota not recusing themselves, when we already know that the mafia regularly drove cars! How deep does this go?!"
The high cost of living is almost entirely driven by land use restrictions and zoning. I don’t know if that’s “liberal politics” but if San Francisco adopted the housing and zoning of Houston it would be way cheaper.
If anything you could argue that's an anti-liberal attitude. It's great the Bay Area is so tolerant of different folks. Except that doesn't help out the black transgender teenager from Mississippi who can't move there, because he's priced out of even the lowest-end apartment. All because some millionaire home owners don't want to see their property values appreciate at a slightly lower rate.
Well, one thing to note is that money returned in buybacks doesn't just get thrown in a big pit. It has to be reinvested somewhere else. So, while it may not help the employees of the company paying the dividends, it certainly helps the employees of the company receiving new investment.
I think you did adroitly mention down thread that there are labor market frictions to consider. And I definitely agree with that. Obviously stable employment is definitely one social consideration. And certainly long-lived companies make for more stable labor markets.
But all in all, I still think that overall most people would prefer faster rather than slower turnover among large firms. Younger companies (as in those founded more recently) tend to be more innovative, deliver better customer service, have more satisfied employees, engage in less lobbying, and have fewer environmental and safety issues.
I'm gonna disagree with you. Very few companies manage to successfully pivot to a line of business that's substantially outside their original area of core competence.
The reality is that different organizations have ingrained cultural DNAs that's usually both optimized for their specific niche and painfully difficult to change. When an industry reaches its inextricable decline, most companies would do better to gracefully return money to shareholders (either in the form of dividends or buybacks).
9 times out of 10, that produces a better outcome for investors than a desperate attempt to reinvent themselves. We tend not to realize this because of survivor bias. But for every Apple, Western Union or AT&T, there's a dozen companies like Polaroid, Sears and DEC littered across history's dustbin.
Say the major tech companies get fed up with Elizabeth Warren's calls to regulate them.
Facebook removes all her groups. Cloudflare shuts down her websites. Youtube removes her videos. Google only leaves anti-Elizabeth Warren search results up, etc. Basically a major presidential candidate is completely locked out of having any presence on the Internet whatsoever.
Would your reaction be the same? "This has nothing to do with free speech. These are merely private companies deciding they don't want to associate with Elizabeth Warren."
Imagine an alternate scenario. Say the major tech companies get fed up with Elizabeth Warren's calls to regulate them.
Facebook removes all her groups. Cloudflare shuts down her websites. Youtube removes her videos. Google only leaves anti-Elizabeth Warren search results up, etc. Basically a major presidential candidate is completely locked out of having any pretense on the Internet whatsoever.
How many people who hold the above position, would say "yeah, this is fine. These are just private companies choosing who they want to associate with. Free speech doesn't apply here."
> My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind).
It should be noted that the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution had way way lower rates of education than today. Even as recently as 1945, the median American only had a 10th grade education. No matter how you measure it, literacy, primary school completion, even intelligence tests, there's no question that the Americans today are significantly more educated than a hundred years ago let alone two hundred.
Yes, I know you explicitly said not to focus on "technical" education. But there's no reasonable definition of the term, whereby you can honestly make a case that the America of 1789 was somehow more educated than the the America of 2019.
All of which means that you have to bite a bullet. Either the Founding Fathers were wrong to enshrine such strong protections of free speech in our Constitution. OR admit that our citizenry more than meets the threshold you posit regarding minimum level of education.