In the US, mortgage banking is about 20% or so of a regional bank on up in terms of revenue generation.
Modern banking is an incredibly complex business so you could basically say no single division makes much money vs the other parts as a whole.
I think that would be a wrong way to view the business though. As if banks would not be in mortgage lending if they could. It is quite the opposite, any one bank would love for the other banks to get out of mortgage lending.
I don't think that is quite what Pareto had in mind.
To me, it is the way that the investment banks/hedge funds were the elites 20 years ago and now the elites are from silicon valley. Along with that came a huge shift in cultural values in society.
It is hard to talk about Pareto though because he has an entire sociology in a 4 volume, 90 year old translation that you have to buy for $200-$300 on ebay and then each page is so dense. I think I have read 40 pages of Trattato di Sociologia Generale and it is a daunting task to think about reading the whole thing.
I think what is missing from this analysis is the offensive capability of American cyber.
The way it is completely downplayed I suspect is proportional to its strength.
If there was all this chatter how we need to invest more in offensive cyber I would be worried. The way we pretend like it doesn't even exist is all you need to know.
Exactly. It's capable and has been for decades, many many years ahead of some of our counterparts.
While it doesn't mean we're fine, I would argue the depth and breadth of coverage has been strategically calculated and held to the point where there are still many contingencies foreign and domestic. I would also argue that the act of "cyber warfare" against us infrastructure would almost guarantee chaos for the attackers given the worlds reliance on us technology and assets, potentially self crippling their own capabilities.
In some ways there's a Mutually Assured Destruction perspective with cyber operations. There are levels of acceptability and most Nation States wouldn't dare cross the line. Where the real risk lies is with rogue small groups. Groups that don't require a lot of money and or time, just a few well placed exploits.
Having been in that world, at the higher echelons, I can attest that MONEY is being spent. Much more than many would know, to secure our foothold and capabilities.
I would thus agree, if we had excess chatter about needing more money for offensive cyber capabilities, I would be much more concerned.
Good thing about it is Cyber is less expensive than kinetic, and money can go much further.
Say a fraudster rips off 90% of what is in your checking account right now, you contact the bank and a language model tells you everything will be resolved shortly.
There is no reality now or in the future that this is good enough. Customer service is not just about getting the problem resolved, it is about having someone to blame when the resolution doesn't work.
If anything, I can picture a future that most knowledge work has some form of customer service involved, because that is exactly what can't be automated. A human that takes the blame/responsibility.
We already have a worse form of what you are talking about with #2. Youtube is already overwhelmed with convincing bullshit videos put out by humans in order to make money, truth and reality be damned.
The best thing that can happen is we get so many AI videos that the entire bullshit video ecosystem collapses.
The greatest danger we face are all these delusional, ubiquitous, central planning ideas of "what could be done".
Luckily for everyone, what we will actually do in this area is absolutely nothing because that is what we always do.
AI safety is good for twitter content and nothing more. Anyone who believes we are going to do more than nothing and the chips will fall as they may is a complete fool.
I partially agree, there are huge delusions of Homo economicus.
There is also this other process at work that is shaped by quarterly earnings reports in public markets. Maybe if we started over with a mirror economy that we rebuild from the ground up, most of these things could be automated.
I think there are many inefficiencies in the system that Homo economicus wouldn't be able to deal with even if Homo economicus actually existed.
I don't have a counter argument. Not to be ironic but ChatGPT4o gives a better response to the question at hand than anything I have read in this thread:
What has worked best for me is to disregard d3 attr. Attr made sense a long time ago but now if using a framework it is just so much easier to work with SVG elements directly instead of so many attr just for svg attributes.
You still end up finding a million ways to use the d3 library even if you never use attr at all.
