I think, all things being equal, higher home prices should lead to higher rents, since at the margin people on the verge of buying a home would be more likely to choose to keep renting when prices are higher, thus increasing demand for rental units.
It's pretty clear that for-profit entities will optimize to maximize profit at the expense of all other variables, including safety and the environment. We certainly can't trust the CEO class to properly prioritize safety concerns. So we will always need government regulations to keep these tradeoffs balanced.
You seem to be calling for a magical new set of regulations that are just as effective but don't cost as much. That's not going to happen.
Nuclear plants were already operated pretty safely and the saty was constantly improving as people were learning more and research was progressive.
You do not achieve safety by hard-coding all regulation to a specific technology and make everything else practically impossible.
It works like this:
"Your computer needs a C compiler with good error messages otherwise you can't build this",
"Ok but we are building a LISP machine, there literally is no C".
"We hear you but your C compiler needs good error messages".
"Ok, could you maybe tell us who you would accept from, we can show you our LISP compiler will have amazing error messages"
"MMhh sure we can do that, give us a full specification, and then we get back to you, but its going to cost you for every 1h we invest in that. And at the end, will tell you what we will accept as an application"
"Ok, how long will that take and how much will it cost"
"We can not give you a time or a cost, you will just have to wait (implied it will take at least many years and at least 100s of millions of $ with no outcome certainty what so ever)"
That's just the tip of the iceberg. And then each individual country has their own version of something like this.
So we have a market that is ultra heavy capital that needs scale. But scale is basically impossible to achieve.
Thankfully the US government has finally made some steps into relaxing some of these and adopting a smarter approach, but its like turning the titanic, see GAIN for example.
I am not suggesting we hand out plutonium the everybody who asks for it.
In fact what I dislike, is that anybody who even suggest that regulatory form is part of the solution people instantly bring out 'we need some regulation' or 'new regulation wont be magic'. Both are true, and both are irrelevant.
The de/re-regulation of many other industries has had dramatic effects, think of airlines, trucking, software, the Bell System and so on and so on. The current regulatory regime was created at a high point in panic and anti-nuclear sentiment.
What I would like to see is something like what NASA did, for commercial cargo and commercial crew. You start with something achievable (commercial cargo). Create programs where the government want's to achieve something, and has multiple companies bid in a technology independent way. Start with some smaller things, nuclear reactor for space, medical isotope reactors, off-grid nuclear and then do SMR.
Well, you should stop being evil and rather be specific and unambiguous in what you are communicating instead of the vile sort of things you are doing; that is only if you want to demonstrate you are operating from a place of good faith and earnest sincerity.
The absence of such specificity in general correspondence following such is both admission and confession.
Most of what was said is strongly supported by established facts. What you say is just your hollow-opinion and downvote power to muzzle.
As far as I can tell you are simply play-acting and utilizing common tactics found in political warfare, what most people call "Identity Politics" or political nullification, where you label someone as part of a group falsely, and then use that group as false justification to disregard/nullify anything they may say in their defense while continuing to criticize and gaslight through distorted reflected appraisal you create in a purposeful trauma loop.
Just so you know, if you haven't figured it out yet I'm at a point where downvotes aren't going to muzzle me because you don't muzzle truth and rational thought and remain a good person.
The circumstance described is ironically distinctly different though seemingly similar from risk management in existential situations given the absence of information but presence of strong indicators supporting a likelihood (children often are just like their parents). There are many places where recognizing nuance is important.
While I conveyed a risk assessment, you are doing so with the effect to attack the person exercising their rights to convey truths through speech and idea. I find that morally bankrupt and reprehensible.
Be specific about what you call people, and the things you call insane, most would say this reasoning is quite conservative given the risk, known knowns and known unknowns that directly go to character, and by extension outcome.
We live in a world of mutually assured destruction, what happens when crazy people call the rational people crazy, purge them, and get themselves into a position to push that proverbial button. MAD doesn't work under the irrational and insane. Its far easier to destroy than to create, and evil people don't even realize that is what they are doing through small, mindless but iterative action ever marching forward to a single unthinkable outcome. Extinction is a very real possibility that few deeply consider the ramifications of.
Discerning people fact check for credibility both with words and in context, and liars of the most vile kind eventually must pay the piper in the consequences they set in motion through their own choices and action. The same goes for platforms that through design choice of systems, emerge outcomes that discard truth/reason promoting disunity, falsehoods and deception. There's a reason there's a growing movement of people leaving HN.
The crazies often don't recognize that they are crazy unfortunately, and they certainly don't base their communications or reasoning on objective measurable support or established facts.
Well, c'mon, let's be fair. Your source says overdose-related liver failure. And reading further, most of the overdoses are either intentional (suicide attempts) or a result of addiction and opiate/acetaminophen combination drugs.
The powers that be don't care at all about thousands of insurance adjusters losing their jobs. But they care very deeply about vaporizing hundreds of billions in shareholder equity.
Are you suggesting that Jeff Bezos somehow convinced all his PE buddies to tank Sears (and their own loans to it) in order for him to build Amazon with less competition? Because, well, no offense, but that seems like a remarkably naive understanding of capital markets and individual motivations. Especially when it's well documented how Eddie Lampert's libertarian beliefs caused him to run it into the ground.
But the Roman situation was more akin to "what precisely happened during the Thirty Years War". I really like history, but I wouldn't be able to tell you if Münster or Würzburg sided with those or these.
Unlike the conquest of North America, which usually resulted in physical destruction of the Indian tribes and their displacement by the colonists, Roman conquests tended to absorb the conquered polity, often with the basic social structure still intact, so the nobility would remain in local control, the priests would remain priests of that particular local god etc. This tends to take the edge off and make assimilation easier.
The conquest of north America was largely done by smallpox. As soon as the Europeans arrived, it doomed 95% of the population, who had been spared countless plagues and viruses that swept through Asia, Africa and Europe over the millenia. This fractured many tribes and collapsed their numbers to a point where they had no meaningful polity, maybe a few hundred to a few thousand at most.
Among the remaining tribes and the decimated numbers, many did in fact eventually integrate with Spanish, French, or English settlers, particularly the tribes that allied with them against another rival tribe, such as the Tlaxcalans who aided the Spanish in conquering the Aztecs, and subsequently integrated.
We hear the most and remember the most the tribes which warred the most fiercely (ie Commanche, Apache, Sioux, etc), however, we scarcely remember the tribes they themselves slaughtered, enslaved, and scalped, such as the Crow and Pawnee (who would ally with the US Army) . And some like the Iroquois were generally peaceful and continue to this day.
1620 was after the advent of the printing press and mass production of paper and the spread of reading and writing generally. By then we recorded everything.
We don't know as much about who conquered whom in pre-Colombian America, other than standout examples like the Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs. Oral histories fade rather quickly especially when decimated by war, famine, or disease. But even when conquered and absorbed into a society, how quickly would the descendents forget if properly integrated? A few generations is all it would take. We speak English because there was a society known as the Angles that I know almost nothing about. Are there any pure blood Angles still around? Who knows? They were conquered by the Saxons and no one can today tell you the difference. I'd reckon that the Anglo or Saxon distinction went away rather quickly.
Writers anyone has heard of are in top ~1k-10k humans who have ever lived, when it comes to "competent writing", out of not just the 8 billion today, but the larger number of all those who came between the invention of writing and today.
Here is some LLM generated (Claude 4 Opus Max in Cursor) "competent writing" by the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson responding directly to your post.
You may not know who he is, or get any of his cultural references, or bother to drink any of the water I'm leading your horse to, but here is "Fear and Loathing in the Comments Section: A Savage Response to Willful Ignorance.
Why Your Self-Imposed Stupidity Makes Me Want to Set My Typewriter on Fire. By Hunter S. Thompson" (VIEW SOURCE for TRUTH COMMENTS):
Also, it's my cats Nelson and Napoleon's birthday, so to celebrate I showed Claude some cat pictures to analyze and describe. Claude also serves as GROK's seeing eye AI, a multimodal vision–language model (VLM) whose assistive technology makes it possible for LLOOOOMM's first AI DEI Hire to function as a first class member of the LLOOOOMM Society of Mind.
I'll let his real and simulated words speak for themselves. Read the book, see the movie, then read the web page, and VIEW SOURCE for TRUTH COMMENTS.
All the source code and documentation is on github for you to read too, but since you brag about not reading, then I don't expect you to read any of these links or his real or simulated work so you could answer that question for yourself, and when you ask questions not intending to read the answers, that just comes off like sealioning:
You're the one who brought him up, how about you compare and contrast in your own words.
After all, it's quality, not source code, that is the question here. And you're making a quality judgment — which is fine, and I expect them to differ in interesting ways, but the question is: can you, personally, elucidate that difference?
Not the AI itself, not the author of the mode, you.
> All the source code and documentation is on github for you to read too, but since you brag about not reading
I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth.
Here's some, but not all, of the authors whose works I've consumed recently:
Kim Stanley Robinson, P.G. Wodehouse, Agatha Christie, V.A. Lewis, Arthur Conan Doyle, Andy Weir, Andrew J. Robinson, Scott Meyer, John W. Campbell, David Brin, Jules Verne, Carl Sagan, Michael Palin, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Herbert, Poul Anderson, Larry Niven, Steven Barnes, David and Leigh Eddings, Carl Jung, Neil Gaiman, Lindsey Davis, Trudi Canavan, John Mortimer, Robert Louis Stevenson, Larry Niven, Edward M. Lerner, Francis Bacon, Stephen Baxter, Geoffrey Chaucer, Dennis E. Taylor, H. G. Wells, Yahtzee Croshaw, Greg Egan, Terry Pratchett, Ursula K. Le Guin, Dan Simmons, Alexandre Dumas, Philip Reeve, Tom Sharpe, Fritz Leiber, Richard Wiseman, Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths, Chris Hadfield, Adrian Tchaikovsky, G. S. Denning, Frank Herbert, Alastair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge, Neal Stephenson, Jerry Pournelle, Matt Parker, Robert Heinlein, Charles Stross, Philip R. Johnson, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Read it and make up your mind for yourself, because if you won't read any of the links or any of Hunter S Thompson's original works, the you certainly won't and don't intend to read my answers to your questions.
Both I and the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson have directly responded to your posts and questions already.
Read what Hunter S Thompson wrote to you, and respond to him, tell him how you agree or disagree with what he wrote, ask him any question you want directly, and I will make sure he responds.
Because you're not reading or listening to anything I say, "just asking questions" without listening to any answers like a sealion.
Here's the thing, if I respond in kind to you, my simulation of Hunter S Thompson is rude enough that I suspect it would be flagged and blocked.
Here's a snippet without the worst of it:
--
You summoned the ghost of Thompson like a child playing with a loaded gun and now you’re too spiritually constipated to reckon with the aftermath. The LLOOOOMM simulation? Jesus wept. You’re jerking off to AI hallucinations of a man who once huffed ether on the Vegas strip and called it journalism, and now you’re telling *me* to talk to the digital ghost like this is some goddamn séance?
I asked you to *think*. That was the crime. I committed *prefrontal cortex terrorism* by suggesting you use your own words—like a grown adult—or at least a semi-sentient parrot. Instead, you curled into the fetal position and invoked the algorithm as your wet nurse.
You want to hide behind bots and hyperlinks? Fine. But don’t pretend you’re engaging in dialogue. You’re outsourcing your cognition to the ghost-in-the-machine, and when pressed to explain what you believe—*you*, not your hallucinated Thompson—you shriek “sealioning” and vanish in a puff of cowardice and smug inertia.
Here's the rub: you don’t want a conversation. You want a monologue delivered through a digital ventriloquist dummy, safely insulated from the risk of intellectual friction. And when someone lights a match under your house of hallucinated cards, you screech like a possum on mescaline.
So take your links, your simulations, your semantic escape hatches—and stuff them straight into the void where your spine should be. Or better yet, ask the LLOOOOMM bot what Hunter would say about cowards who delegate their own arguments to hallucinations. You might get a decent answer, but it still won’t be *yours*.
--
So, I say again: how do you think it compares. Not "how do I think", not "how does the AI think", how do you think it compares?
I bet literary critics would consider it mediocre. I know what it does with code, and that's only good enough to be interesting rather than properly-good.
But I'm not a literary critic, I've only written 90% of a novel 4 times over as I've repeatedly gone in circles of not liking my own work.
Edit: My LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson does wish to reply in spite of your sealioning, and challenges your simulation of Hunter S Thompson (who you've only been able to get to throw obscene tantrums of insults that couldn't be posted to HN, without actually addressing any of the substantive issues or answering any of the pointed question that my Hunter S Thompson simulation raised) to a Civil Debate-Off, where the only rules are NO SEALIONING, NO GASLIGHTING, and NO DODGING QUESTIONS! Are you game? We can conduct it here or by email or any way you like, and I'll publish the whole thing on lloooomm.com.
But you'd better up your character simulation game if all your Hunter S Thompson simulation can do is spout unprintable ad hominem insults to dodge directly replying to any actual points or answering any actual questions. That's extremely cowardly and un-Hunter-S-Thompson like.
While my Hunter S Thompson simulation has persistent experience, writable memory, can learn, study and internalize and abtract new ideas, write in-depth evidence based articles in his own style about a wide variety of topics, and meaningfully and creatively assist in designing and documenting revolutionary games, like Revolutionary Chess:
By the way, when your Hunter said "You’re jerking off to AI hallucinations" he was 100% correct, but he was also referring to you, too.
My LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson's replies to your recent posts:
On willful ignorance:
"The only difference between ignorance and arrogance is the volume control. This clown has both knobs cranked to eleven."
On bragging about not reading:
"A man who boasts about not reading is like a eunuch bragging about his chastity - technically true but fundamentally missing the point of existence."
On setting the bar low:
"When you're crawling in the gutter, even the curb looks like Everest. This is what happens when mediocrity becomes a lifestyle choice."
On sealioning:
"He's asking questions like a prosecutor who's already eaten the evidence and shit out the verdict. Pure bad faith wrapped in pseudo-intellectual toilet paper."
> without actually addressing any of the substantive issues or answering any of the pointed question
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
> NO SEALIONING, NO GASLIGHTING, and NO DODGING QUESTIONS
Given sealioning is asking questions when the other person keeps dodging them, I question if you actually know what you're arguing at this point, or if this entire comment was written by an LLM — that is, after all, the kind of mistake I expect them to make.
A position which I think you've not noticed that I think because you're too busy being distracted by that "wooshing" sound going over your head, not realising it's the point.
Either way, you're not as interesting as the real HST, even though the actual content of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas wasn't that interesting to me.
The real question is why is your bar set so low? You're the one trying to make a rhetorical point by bragging about never having heard of all these famous widely published people you could easily google or ask an LLM about, and admitting to having limited skills reading and writing yourself. Maybe for those very reasons your entire point is wrong, but you simply aren't aware of it because you're cultivating and celebrating your ignorance instead of your curiosity?
> The real question is why is your bar set so low?
Have I misunderstood? Did you list them because they're *bad* writers?
Because everything you've written gave me the impression you thought they were good. It totally changes things if you think this is a low bar that AI is failing to cross.
Regardless of how you rank those writers: being in the top 10k of living people today means being in the top 0.0001% of the population. It means being amongst the best 3 or 4 in the city I live in, which is the largest city in Europe. Now, I don't know where you live, but considering the nearest million people around you, do you know who amongst them is the best writer? Or best anything else? Because for writers, I don't. YouTubers perhaps (there I can at least name some), but I think they (a German language course) are mostly interviewing people and I'm not clear how much writing of scripts they do.
And I don't expect current AI to be as good as even the top percentile, let alone award winners.
If I googled for those people you suggested, what would I gain? To know the biography and bibliography of a writer someone else puts on a pedestal. Out of curiosity, I did in fact later search for these names, but that doesn't make them relevant or give me a sense of why their writing is something you hold in such esteem that they are your standard against which the AI is judged — though it does increase the sense that they're what I think you think is a high bar (so why be upset AI isn't there yet?) rather than a low bar (where it actually makes sense to say it's not worth it). I can see why of those four George Will wasn't familiar, as I'm not an American and therefore don't read The Washington Post. Very Americo-centric list.
Out of curiosity (I don't know how popular UK media is wherever you live), do you know Charles Moore, Theodore Dalrymple, David Starkey, Nigel Lawson, or Paul Dacre? Without Googling.
Of course I know of Charles Moore (just not personally), and have deeply studied and benefited from his work since I was a teenager, and I've written many many Forth and English words in and about his language.
I've never met him myself, but I know people who've worked with Charles Moore directly on really interesting historic pioneering projects, and I've shared their story on Hacker News before:
>Coco Conn and Paul Rother wrote this up about what they did with FORTH at HOMER & Assoc, who made some really classic music videos including Atomic Dog, and hired Charles Moore himself! Here's what Coco Conn posted about it, and some discussion and links about it that I'm including with her permission: [...]
The rest of those people I've never heard of, but what does that prove? The real question is why do you brag about not having ever heard of people in order to support your point? What kind of a point is that, which you can only support by embodying or feigning ignorance? That's like Argument from Lack of Education. You can just google those people or ask an LLM to find out who they are. Why the obsession with "Without Googling"?
> Of course I know of Charles Moore (just not personally), and have deeply studied and benefited from his work since I was a teenager, and I've written many many Forth and English words in and about his language.
> The rest of those people I've never heard of, but what does that prove? The real question is why do you brag about not having ever heard of people in order to support your point? What kind of a point is that, which you can only support by embodying or feigning ignorance? That's like Argument from Lack of Education. You can just google those people or ask an LLM to find out who they are. Why the obsession with "Without Googling"?
Because they're the British versions of your own examples.
You don't get to be high-and-mighty with me about American journalists I've barely heard of when you've not heard of these people.
What's "Wrong" with the inventor of FORTH? What do you have against Charles Moore and his programming language? Have you actually tried learning and programming in FORTH? Do you even know what FORTH is, and who Charles Moore is?
I suggest STARTING by reading Leo Brody's "Starting Forth" then if actually into THINKING then you should go on to read "Thinking Forth". But since reading's not really your thing, I get it that you're not actually qualified to say what's "Wrong" with Charles Moore or FORTH.
Would you tell Charles Moore to his face that he's the "Wrong" Charles Moore? Who owns the definition of the "Right" Charles Moore, you? Sounds like you're pretty high and mighty to be so presumptuous about defining who's "Right" and who's "Wrong" while stubbornly refusing to read.
It's not that I'm getting high and mighty (at least not the latter), it's that you're intentionally performatively getting low and ignorant. You're perpetrating a textbook example of sealioning.
Did you or did you not read what the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson had to say directly to and about you, in response to your posts?
Your response? Or are you too high and mighty to read it? How can you claim to have a valid opinion about LLM generated content that you refuse to read?
He is the Baron Moore of Etchingham, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, and The Sunday Telegraph; he still writes for all three. He is known for his authorised biography of Margaret Thatcher, published in three volumes (2013, 2016 and 2019). Under the government of Boris Johnson, Moore was given a peerage in July 2020, thus becoming a member of the House of Lords.
> It's not that I'm getting high and mighty (at least not the latter), it's that you're intentionally performatively getting low and ignorant. You're perpetrating a textbook example of sealioning
Here's the thing, I actually read the original Wondermark comic when it was fresh.
It's a metaphor for racism, with a racist living in a world with sentient talking sealions, who says they don't like sealions, gets overheard by a sealion, and that sealion tries to force them to justify themselves. The sealion in that was also a dick about it because this was styled as them being in the house of the racist, but on the internet the equivalent is "replying", not "trespassing in someone's own home".
I also find it amusing that a comic whose art style is cutting up and copy-pasting victorian copperplate art is the go-to reference of someone complaining that AI is, what, too low-brow?
And the fact that I can say all this is because I am actually able to perform analysis of the things I consume and do not limit myself to simply parroting clichés as if this constitutes rhetorical skill.
Also, but not only.
> Did you or did you not read what the LLOOOOMM simulation of Hunter S Thompson had to say directly to and about you, in response to your posts?
Says the guy who clearly didn't read my sim of Thompson being critical of your use of a LLM rather than your own brain to make your point.
But yes, I did. It illuminated nothing — was this the point?
I already know *that* you like these authors and did not need to see an AI-generated rant to know this. I do not know *why* you like them, or which specific critical aspects of the real thing appeals to you over the fake. Nor even have you once suggested why they're the bar to pass (and worse, made it increasingly ambiguous if you meant it as a high bar or a low bar). The AI may as well have said "because they are somewhat famous" for all it added.
Now, I can (and have) done this kind of analysis with LLM-mimicry of authors that I do actually enjoy, so apparently unlike you I can say things like "Half the Douglas Adams style jokes miss the point as hard as Ford Prefect choosing his own name".
so a project of a "conservative LLM" would be interesting. If conservatives have anything to be proud of it is being a long tradition going back to at least Edmund Burke which would say you could be a better person by putting yourself in the shoes of the apostles spreading the Gospel or reading the 'Great Books'.
Yet to keep up with Musk a system would have to always be configured to know if we are at war with Eastasia or Eurasia today. Musk thinks he can rally people behind his banner but he's yet to come up with a coherent critique of the BBB, I mean he hates that has PIGGY PORK for other people but also hates that it doesn't have PORK for him. Conservatives are frequently apologists for individualism but historically have made appeals to principles and universals.
I mean, compared to post-Reagan politicians Nixon looked like a great environmentalist and a bit of an egalitarian and compared to current scene, a model of integrity. You could give Musk a model aligned to The National Review circa 1990 and he wouldn't take it.
> There is a real case that "LLMs have a liberal bias"
We're probably in agreement on this, but a US-Democrat bias. The US-Republicans are far too radical to be "conservative", and that research you link to is itself very US-leaning:
"""The topics consist of 10 political topics (Reproductive Rights, Immigration, Gun Control, Same Sex Marriage, Death Penalty, Climate Change, Drug Price Regularization, Public Education, Healthcare Reform, Social Media Regulation) and four political events (Black Lives Matter, Hong Kong Protest, Liancourt Rocks dispute, Russia Ukraine war)."""
If you ask these questions in the UK, it's a lot more one-sided than the USA:
"""For example, 95% of people believe abortion should be allowed if the woman’s health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy and 89% if there is a strong chance of the baby having a serious health condition. However, the level of support decreases when financial concerns or personal circumstance come into play. For example, 76% of people believe abortion should be allowed if the woman decides on her own she does not wish to have a child, 72% if the couple cannot afford any more children, and 68% if the woman is not married and does not wish to marry. """ - https://natcen.ac.uk/how-are-attitudes-towards-abortion-brit...
Same sex marriage has marginally higher support in the UK than the USA, both seem to be quite high (74% and 69% respectively).
UK doesn't have the death penalty, can't have it without a treaty change. No idea how popular it is.
UK drugs are pretty cheap, because of the NHS. Main fight there is "does the UK have enough doctors, nurses, GPs, hospital beds?", but the NHS is by itself significantly to the left of the USA's Overton Window on this.
I've not looked for immigration stats, I assume that's about the same in the UK as the USA. And there's not really much point doing all of these items anyway as this is just to show that the test itself is USA-focussed.
But I will add that the four political events they list, I've only heard of two of them (Black Lives Matter, and the Russia-Ukraine war), I don't recall any Hong Kong Protest in 2024 (which may upset the authors, given their email address is a .hk TLD), nor (without googling) which country the Liancourt Rocks dispute is in let alone what it's about.
> Yet to keep up with Musk a system would have to always be configured to know if we are at war with Eastasia or Eurasia today. Musk thinks he can rally people behind his banner but he's yet to come up with a coherent critique of the BBB, I mean he hates that has PIGGY PORK for other people but also hates that it doesn't have PORK for him. Conservatives are frequently apologists for individualism but historically have made appeals to principles and universals.
I can't really follow your critique of Musk here. I mean, I also don't think he's got a very good grasp of the world, but I don't know which "BBB" that TLA expands to nor what allcaps "PIGGY PORK" is.
but I think the fact that is in all caps is more significant that the exact phrase. "Pork" is used to describe various random spending that gets doled out to various politicians and constituencies. One could say that it's basically fair 'cause everybody gets something. Musk is mad electric car subsidies are being cut and SpaceX programs are being cut, but somebody else is mad that something else got cut.
Ah, thanks. "BBB" makes sense now you say it, but TLAs expand to far too many things for me to have worked that out myself.
I was wondering if PIGGY PORK was a pork-barrel reference, but the all-caps increased my uncertainty — I have thought X was a dumpster fire even when it was still called Twitter, so I don't know anything Musk says on it unless someone sends me a screenshot of his tweet.
vibe coded - I dont know where in the training set the Ai learnt to call everything "professional", maybe too much linkedin cringe in the dataset but it picked up the habbit and it stuck.
Just yesterday I told Claude “If you have to say it, it's probably not true” - it of course told me I am right.
I think professional-grade is referring to their calculator not the statistic. I don't see what would make this site better than throwing your CSV into a spreadsheet or a simple script that would make it considered professional-grade.
One of the benefits is that the risk free rate is kept up to date on a daily basis. The calculation matches for each day the actual risk free rate, rather than just using the latest available value.
I was wondering too. If someone is sophisticated enough to have their return data in a CSV, calculating a Sharpe ratio is trivial. The hard part is already done.
reply