u/sobe86

I think you're being naive about how politics works. An MP can be personally aligned with your views, but constituency preference is a weak predictor of how an MP will vote compared to party affiliation. They are more aligned with their party than they are with you. It's their peers that will advance their careers, it's their whip that will make their life hell if they don't toe the party line.

Right, but the underlying mechanism is that the shares 8x in value. Where on the balance sheet is that reflected other than a straight loss? Would one not say on balance this is quite good for ANT?

Or say that ANT just issued ordinary shares rather than convertibles - that doesn't go in as a loss like this. Why? That's kind of the weird effect of having such a weird balance sheet.

No it's not even that. What happened is something like this (I don't know exact numbers).

• investors gave ANT 10 billion in exchange for convertible bonds
• those bonds go up in value to 82B
• under GAAP, that counts as a 72B loss for ANT. Even though no extra cash was spent by then in the intervening time.

No serious investor looking at this should take that profit number at face value for this reason.

Chess is a sport though. AI can't automate a sport, the human competition of it is kind of the point.

That would be true if they'd priced everything knowing there'd only be one or two premiums, but they didn't. Money scarcity is really important to the game, it forces large foundational decisions - how many premium defenders do you have? How deep does your team need to be? The more of your first-pick players you can get into your team, the less difficult choices there are, and the game becomes boring.

Also - I think newer players may not realise but this will be the third year in a row FPL got this wrong. It's a pretty different game when they get it right.

Are you saying you think the people running this bot support Arsenal? That seems like a leap.

Does anyone know if the voting takes the mode or the mean/median? If it's the mode they should fix that immediately otherwise like everything is going to end up in planetary scale

Lmao you are using AI to reply to me aren't you. I was sus on the last reply but you really didn't hide it well this time.

I feel like we're talking past each other completely. I'm saying your list is obviously not valid. If you want to show that any list is insufficient for an inference, surely you at least start from a valid set of suppositions. I don't think the joke obviously makes the point you are claiming here.

My point is that your joke only works if you forget the context completely, you're mostly playing word games here. OP is trying to demonstrate that AGI is very dangerous, and some of the properties he lists are actually compelling arguments for that. Just because some of points are still true when you replace 'AGI' with 'rabbits' as-written, it doesn't invalidate those points in the context of AGI.

Let's take a different example - COVID. One reason it was so catastrophic is because it reproduced so effectively. Saying "well rabbits also reproduce effectively'' - while those words can be considered true in some contexts, they obviously don't make a good argument that COVID might actually not have been so bad.

I laughed, however when you get to 4 - we have meticulously studied rabbit behavior, we know they aren't especially intelligent or dangerous, and don't think they're becoming more so over time. Maybe we can't predict their behavior exactly, but on the axes we care about for this discussion we can - they aren't capable or interested in mass destruction beyond eating things we don't want them to.

This argument doesn't really work though. Yes you employ more people for the duration, but you also prolong the duration. You're missing the opportunity cost of completing it quickly and moving on to another project, which would lead to higher employment across the longer duration.

And Heathrow is a particularly bad example to make your case here. It's a genuinely contentious project, and it's mostly privately funded.

Oh I only just realized what sub this was. I should not be posting here. But yeah I agree, in the age of oligarchs this is something to fight against.

Bro this post is about PSG what do you expect. I shit on Man City, Real etc too don't you worry.

Again this whataboutism doesn't work my friend. You are not the sole problem. But you are part of the problem.

I started this thing by saying you represent billionaires putting their thumb on the scale. You have failed to refute that. And maybe you should research who owns Qatari airlines if you don't think this is just maybe a circular deal.

So you agree that you got to where you are now through corruption and cash injections through billionaires. And you think that it's ok because you got caught earlier, and you converted that success into more legitimate sponsorship and broadcasting rights?

Also I can't help but notice that 100m of your revenue still comes from Qatari business. You don't see an ongoing problem with that? You think that sticks around if the Qataris sell?

If UEFA had done the right thing, and forced a change of ownership we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Other high-revenue clubs being idiotic with their money doesn't change this IMO. They got where they are today through shady Qatari sponsorships (which they got caught doing). They have converted that manufactured revenue into more legitimate revenue after the success came. Are we ok with this? Is that how this sport should work?

"Yes we're corrupt but what about these other corrupt clubs" is a terrible defense. "Our owners put their thumb on the scale, but that was 10 years ago now" is a terrible defense. These don't work for Man City and they don't work for you either.

I think this is more boring than people think. These are the teams that stated intent to sue Man City if it was a guilty verdict. They couldn't start their cases until this process was over.

Oh yeah great let's make football a competition of "my billionaire's bigger than your billionaire". Excellent idea.

We hate you because you represent outside money coming in and putting their thumb on the scale. Not for love of the game, just to make an Arab state look better. It's horrible for football and the spirit of competition. Same reason we hate Man City. Saying this has nothing to do with money is delusional.

Are you saying people are only complaining now that you just win everything? Because obviously we hate you more now that you are successfully spoiling competitions we watch.

115 for the lolz

This is Anthropic showing its Effective Altruism roots. I don't buy it - once they become publicly traded it will be much harder to do things like this, so that isn't their primary goal. I also don't really see where you get UBI from this, they never say it and my guess is it is not going to be structured anything like that.

Lol doesn't this make him even more similar to Atrioc though?

These guys have to crank out a lot of content. What they do is pore over content like the FT, Bloomberg etc, synthesize the reporting into an entertaining narrative suitable for YT, throw on a bunch of jokes, record and click send. Both he and Atrioc are YouTubers, not analysts. Patrick does also cite people a lot, at least in his recent videos. He can hold his own off-the-cuff in interviews, and is likeable and funny. I don't know maybe I don't feel the need to purity test this quite as much.