we are just an investment toy

Parasites.

Jeroen Belleman

Reminds me of Robert Downey Jr.'s impression of those people:

If you don't understand the real-world activities underlying the tricks traders try to pull off, you can imagine that they really are win-win plays. The dot-com bubble is now far enough behind us that people are ready to make the same mistakes again.

Someone knew there was even more money to be made with a well-timed sequel:

Traders are parasites.

Value investors are proper curators.

The computer or tech industry has enjoyed the tremendous margins of the embarrassment of resources accorded that the economy was inverted for accounts of depreciation that data centers should pay excise to account for all the Primary R & D that the macro-economic poured, and the, "uncommon profits", basically doubling annually like "Moore's New Law".

Also the "Free and Open Source" people have a tremendous amount of "goodwill credit".

They have had to deal with the fact that the hardware they have invested in has become obsolete at a phenomenal rate.

Even the hardware used to make the bits that are assembled into the hardware that gets sold has gone obsolete remarkably quickly.

The economics are odd.

It's a better approach when the technology become obsolete before it has had chance to wear out.

Somehow "obsolete" and "hardware" seem anti-nomous.

Then, something like "bleeding edge anti-depreciation" seems like that as the economy has inverted, that information cost infinity and now costs zero, "bits per watt", while things like "heat per watt" or "cool per watt" or "miles per watt" or "food per watt" or "light per watt" have not, then for a usual idea that a modicum of technology is indispensable for individuals, then is for something like that each person gets five or ten computers and the rest (like data centers) basically pay for the privilege of existing, for example when they are installed for utility-like systems or per watt for the "economies of scale", then that can go into the model of "depreciation".

I'm typing this from a 100+ year old desk with a 20+ year old keyboard to a 40+ year old bulletin-board type system.

Then, one might aver that would add price to information technology which often is useful, so would add to the price of everything. Well, that's competing by now with otherwise material needs, and, I suppose it would raise the price of spam, computer crimes, bloatware, spam, ....

Sort of like if e-mail and SMS texts had stamps, ..., though clearly this isn't much a world of "mobile phone minutes" anymore that every individual is carrying the largest load of utility bills ever, mostly "Internet" and "Phone".

If software got paid according to how much it was used, then Linus Torvalds would be very, very wealthy.

"If I had a nickel for each time, ...."

I'll aver that it's _not_ a better approach to replace technology when it can be maintained, and that the modern approach of "planned obsolescence" called "value engineering: disposable" is an affront to the spirit and practicality of "value engineering: durable".

Then, about the means of production, has that by now there are many processes that are simply under-served their creative and constructive process by industry, which often makes for a sort of mono-culture, it's agreeable that "hardware is competitive", yet what isn't. The idea that classic lines of technology that are long proven involve modularity and inter-operability and standards and the planning in engineering of lifetime maintenance about total cost of ownership and the like, vis-a-vis opportunity cost and supply and demand, here usually enough is for standards and inter-operability. Here "right to repair" is more "the reality to repair".

That "traders are parasites" has that usually enough that entering and exiting positions isn't a crime, yet, "insider trading" of publicly traded capital instruments is a crime in most places, since the shareholders' interests.

Then a usual idea that "uncommon profits" illustrate "inefficiencies in free-market capitalism", has that Adam Smith thinks so. Then, derivatives can be considered many, many trades instead of just one.

Ross Finlayson snipped-for-privacy@GMail.com wrote: |---------------------------------------------------------| |"I'll aver that it's _not_ a better approach to replace | |technology when it can be maintained, and that the | |modern approach of "planned obsolescence" called | |"value engineering: disposable" is an affront to the | |spirit and practicality of "value engineering: durable"."| |---------------------------------------------------------|

Cf.

It's a Wordpress site. What would you expect, other than bloat and gadgetry?

Jeroen Belleman

Wordpress is frustratingly buggy. (I never detect a bug on that website.) (S.

Since the sorts of inversions of scales, then for something well-known to proponents of free-market capitalism with regulation for equal protections, then "Adam Smith's invisible hand, of fairness" which makes an account that free initiative will provide a _fair_ and competitive free-market, then "Adam Smith's obvious thumb, on the scale", is an idea for economics that since computers and the transistorized and miniaturized haven't merely shifted the paradigm yet inverted the paradigm, that it makes sense that the information-economy pays for itself in the scales where it has the most advantage.

Thusly matters of opportunity cost and the like or otherwise most usual accounts from micro-economics and macro-economics makes for a macro-economic account where the "asymptotic freedom" this inversion of scale can make for "symmetry-flex" instead of "symmetry-breaking", thusly sensible for both the micro-economic and macro-economic accounts, help rehabilitate depreciation into actually being accurate, both in time and over time.

So, for "Adam Smith's invisible hand, of fairness", and this "Adam Smith's obvious thumb, on the scale", is a simple account that adds up for something like the Utility Function of Samuelson, the value.

So, for a sort of "Smith-Samuelson economic law of robotics", is for a sort of "proof of work" principle, for example, that can show how in-efficiencies in free-market capitalism can be addressed mathematically, then into regulation.

Basically the simplest proof of work then is de-inverting the scale, for example money-wise, then for that back into the macro-economic Primary R & D, which beings with the education-pipeline of a strong middle class.

Adam Smith's free-market capitalism has never taken on board economies of scale.

The rule of thumb is that if you make something in ten times the volume you can sell it for half the price.

What's not noticed is that the high volume product is qualitatively different from it low volume product it replaces - it serves the same function, but in a distinctly different way.

At the moment, China makes 90% of the solar cells installed around the world. They are half the price of the German cells that had knocked everybody else out of that market about two decades ago, and appreciably better - the University of New South Wales research that made then possible was a great piece of work.

Nobody else is going to invest the huge amounts of money it took to get them into volumenproduction. China can make as many as the world needs and can make them as fast as the world can install them, and could swamp the market if somebody was brave enough to invest a similar amount of money.

It has pretty much fixed the global warming problem - not that the global temperature is going to stop rising all that soon, but carbon emissions aren't rising as fast as they were, and we can eventually get all the energy we need without burning any fossil carbon, and the renewable sources are cheaper per kilowatt hour than their fossil-fuelled competition, not that the existing systems are going to get dismantled all that quickly.

Oh, I thought the photovoltaic factories are currently in Thailand and Vietnam.

I'd buy "Panasonic" yet they have a habit of inventing the greatest new thing, making a factory run, then leaving the bits after the margins to the market, like how they enter and exit "television" every few five years. Panasonic then Sony, usually enough.

Flexible manufacturing has something to be said, along the lines of "I see you have a manufacturing plant there", and "Yeah, it's called a lathe and a drill and some tooling".

Here the idea that making sustainable aviation fuel with the electricity and air and water and Fischer-Tropsch and a pretty simple distillative setup with Seebeck and Peltier providing the fractionating, it's another usual idea that the Germans invented then farmed out to "government subsidized industry".

I'm not saying that capital industries should be expropriated, well that's what I just said yet instead it's that there's to be addressed the, "in-efficiencies of the market", and also for protections the equal protections the common good, about "the global economy".

The idea that there are barriers to entry to the market, vis-a-vis, that Adam Smith's invisible hand would otherwise make for many competing and varied interests, is for a usual idea why anti-trust law exists to address the "in-efficiencies", of the economy.

Bill Sloman snipped-for-privacy@IEEE.org wrote: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"At the moment, China makes 90% of the solar cells [. . .] | |[. . .] | | | |[. . .] | | | |It has pretty much fixed the global warming problem - not that the | |global temperature is going to stop rising all that soon, but carbon | |emissions aren't rising as fast as they were, and we can eventually get | |all the energy we need without burning any fossil carbon, and the | |renewable sources are cheaper per kilowatt hour than their | |fossil-fuelled competition[. . .]" | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I am a nuclear physicist. A dishonest politican in Ireland is campaigning for nuclear electricity. Nuclear electricity is too dangerous. Politicans in Ireland and nuclear physicists (but not I) are lethally dishonest. (S.

Why do you think it's especially dangerous? Reasonably designed and operated nukes are very safe in civilized countries.

Generating and transporting any large-scale energy is dangerous.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

John Larkin snipped-for-privacy@Glen--Canyon.com wrote: |----------------------| |"civilized countries."| |----------------------|

Please identify a civilized country. Even if it would exist, then it is not in Ireland. (S.

There is also the concern that thanks to the AI investment (which semiconductor stocks are a proxy for) we're facing the first generation of functionally-illiterate college graduates who used ChatGPT to fudge their way through school, and won't have any competence in their fields. However given that there won't be any jobs available anyway, it sort of works itself out.

Bitrex snipped-for-privacy@example.net wrote: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"There is also the concern that thanks to the AI investment (which | |semiconductor stocks are a proxy for) we're facing the first generation | |of functionally-illiterate college graduates who used ChatGPT to fudge | |their way through school," | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Since many years before ChatGPT, Hennessey and Patterson struggle to find a way to put questions into "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach" which students would not answer by using a search engine.

I once played a quiz. Its 1st rule is: no cheating.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"and won't have any competence in their fields." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|

So-called universities produce thousands of such 'graduates' since decades ago.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"However given that there won't be any jobs available anyway, it sort of| |works itself out." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|

:)

(S.