It’s unlikely that a human would be better than an AI at diagnosing covid as we already know that AI outperforms doctors on other diagnoses including breast cancer for example https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50857759
gareth
Karma: 35
Interesting insight—could you explain why you think they are dubious and politically motivated ? Thks
This seems a little harsh. Sure Wikipedia has many rules, mostly to prevent bias or people pushing agendas. It’s not perfect, but in general I have found it to be a reliable, neutral source of information especially in controversial subjects such as Middle East politics for example.
Also research shows that Wikipedia is a reliable source https://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/ although I’m sure you can find research that shows the opposite.
And as the original poster says, if you find something inaccurate, spend 5 minutes to give back and fix it. I have made hundreds of small edits and maybe only a handful have been deleted / rolled back
I can’t talk about your specific examples of course but I would trust (cited) articles on Wikipedia above most sources on the web.
From Manchester to Beirut: The power of education to change lives
Meditation and morning pages / journaling are 2 things that I regularly do. I have found that meditation is helpful for focus and clearing my mind. Morning pages has made me much better at understanding my thought processes and resolving issues I may have, whether personal or professional. When I started them both I wasn’t sure what the result would be but now as I practice they are both super useful tools that have improved my life.
Or just put a checklist in your travel bag. I recommend the small refillable bottles that you can get at places like muji (no idea if muji is a thing where you are) as they mean I can just take enough for a weekend or one week , keep volume to a minimum and allow me to take my bag as carry-on. Having spares is a great reason to do this though.
Maybe we shouldn’t (and a decision algorithm shouldn’t) put absolute (binary) limits on free speech, but should just reduce the exposure of ideas that have no scientific basis. Banning homeopathic information or research for example might mean that we miss out on a new discovery that we can’t measure today. “Turning down the volume” or reducing the ability to transmit ideas that have been proved (at least based on our current knowledge) to be scientifically invalid will stop people being fooled and wasting their money, or worse putting their health at risk. Similarly requiring proof or evidence for any scientifically-based argument would at least stop charlatans and con-artists for whom the truth is just getting in the way of them making a fast buck. Finally I want to reference Karl popper’s paradox of tolerance, which states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. In other words, there have to be limits on freedoms of speech. It’s not ok to shout “fire” in a theatre, nor is it ok to encourage your followers to subvert democracy by attempting an insurrection, to take a relevant recent example.
Why $100 000 ? Surely a better question would be how to maximise fun for the smallest possible cost?
As the saying goes, “it’s time in the market, not timing the market”. There is a lot of research that says that market timing is incredibly difficult and most people fail to do it successfully.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmoore/2016/03/07/the-myth-of-market-timing/
https://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2020/12/23/3-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-wait-for-the-stock-market-to-crash/
Also your assumption that the fed will raise interest rates to control inflation assumes that low inflation is their actual goal rather than just their stated goal. This months ARP newsletter has an excellent analysis of why higher inflation might be their desired outcome : https://www.arpinvestments.com/arl/why-much-wealth-must-be-confiscated
Furthermore, if you have already sold all your stocks, you are already sitting on a potential 30% gain if your assumptions play out. Shorting the market is a high risk leveraged strategy that could leave you with large losses if the market goes sideways, or continues to rise over the next months.
To be clear I do think that a significant market correction is coming, however as someone who tried (and failed) to successfully time investments during the dotcom bubble and in much of the decade after, I am much more comfortable being fully invested, knowing that whatever happens short term, this is the easiest, and lowest risk way (for me—based on my investment profile and personality) to maximise my returns long-term.
Good luck in any case!