>> Reproduction or distribution of any materials obtained on this website or linking to this website without written permission is prohibited.[0]

[0] https://berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html

The article mentions tang repeatedly as if it's a positive thing. Maybe I don't know what tang is, but shouldn't pancakes be sweet and not tangy?

A lot of people like a sour flavor to contrast with sweet or savory, especially with fermented notes. It's why people like sourdough, cultured butter, yogurt, etc.

Personally I don't love a lot of those things; they taste spoiled to me. But I'm in a minority of "foodies", who find those flavors interesting, and find my preferred versions flat and boring. They are also very traditional flavors; that's how food was preserved before canning and leavened before baking powder and packaged yeast. De gustibus.

Claude is a tool in the hands of the person using it. If you built a cabinet using power tools would you say the drill and saw built the cabinet? Or that you did?

I find it irritating when people send me a code review and say that Claude wrote the code. No, you wrote the code, you are responsible for the code. You can't blame Claude if it's crap and you don't have to credit Claude if it's genius. Claude is not a person.

If Imagen generates a digital painting after my prompt, I didn't make the painting.

I don't want them to say "I wrote it." They're still responsible, but it's helpful to know they weren't deeply involved in its creation.

Claude is not a single tool like a power drill or saw so I don't feel like this analogy fits well. Claude is more similar to the entire workshop and a robot using the tools and then you telling the robot what to build.

So maybe that cabinet wouldn't exist without the human element but I think it's fair for other humans to feel that's not quite the same as building it yourself.

Robinhood (and retail in general) order flow is valuable precisely because there's already no information in it. It's assumed to be more or less random.

Institutional order flow can move the market, or be an indicator that the market is going to move in that direction. So executing against it a worse bet than executing against retail flow.

Yes. And indeed, when aggregated and averaged across all betters, nobody makes any money.

The question isn't what percentage of bets resolve to no, but whether there is a consistent bias in the prices away from the fair price, which has an expected value of 0, and what direction that bias is in.

Yes, Silicon Valley has some bits that don't quite match real life. But every now and then there's some true insight in it.

Like the bit where the crazy VC tells them that the last thing they need is revenue.

https://youtu.be/BzAdXyPYKQo?si=fU3Y3-ucHqgoBDLU

> If it were true, then decline wouldn't have begun in the 19th or 20th century but around the time that property and currencies emerged.

Why? Can you elaborate on that? Did the emergence of property and currency cause a negative correlation between intelligence and number of offspring?

I think there's so much ill-founded assumptions in eugenics BS that it's hard to know where to start, but as a genealogist, I can personally verify that upper or middle class, wealthier people, presumably the sort eugenicists identify with, clearly had at least a 2-3 generations head start on the demographic transition where I come from.

There are other trends, there's always some groups of people who started having fewer kids earlier or later for reasons not obviously related to class - but class is the big one.

The Arab parties are potential "kingmakers" in the coalition arithmetic. In particular, it was Mansour Abbas that made the "change government" (Lapid-Bennett) and if there's any chance of unseating Bibi again it'll come down to him. And to my knowledge he hasn't ruled out joining Bibi either, if there's a deal to be made.

A lot also depends on whether the Arab parties run together in the coming elections or not.

But it's still described as a $2M toll, not a 13.81M CNY toll. So I guess we're not there yet.

When a stock drops in value, the dollars don't flow anywhere, they just disappear. Think about this: For every buyer ("putting money in a stock") there is a seller ("taking money out of a stock') at exactly the same price. So dollars aren't "in" a stock at all - the shares exist and are said to have some dollar value based on the recent trading price or open orders in the market. When the price drops, it's because the collective consensus on how much those shares are worth changed, and the dollars assumed to have exist prior are just gone.