It's the inverse, here how you have to bet (unless you plan to be doing the hands on assassination works) :
X will get re-elected. Company Y CEO will not change in 2027. This is not artist Z last tour. Athlete K will participate in this event etc.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread the bet have to be lost if you want your target dead.
If someone want him dead, someone have to bet that million on the target being alive at a specific date. Unless someone plan to do the execution themselves, the bet must be lost for the target to be unalive !
I too had esophagogastroduodenoscopy and the "sedation" I received as a barely noticeable dose of fentanyl. It was unpleasant to feel like I was drowning in saliva but it was quite bearable.
If I ever receive that procedure again, I will ask to skip the fentanyl microdose. The anesthesia and the buzz were not only underwhelming but for some reasons I started to feel the typical opioid warmth when the procedure was almost completed. Had they waited a few minutes after the IM injection I might have had another opinion on the usefulness on fentanyl during endoscopie because the last 30s were almost pleasant!
Because the cancers cells adapt! (fast reproduction and high mutation rate of the cancerous cells make that process quicker than antibiotics resistance)
from the article (pay attention to the part in italics):
FLASH radiotherapy flips the conventional approach on its head, delivering a single dose of ultrahigh-power radiation in a burst that typically lasts less than one-tenth of a second. In study after study, this technique causes significantly less injury to normal tissue than conventional radiation does, without compromising its antitumor effect.
That phrasing isn't perfectly clear, as there's two things at play.
If you're delivering a large dose D all at once, FLASH spares normal tissue compared to conventional rate irradiations, with maintained anti-tumour effect.
But, you can instead deliver your treatment in a number of smaller doses, say n "fractions" of dose d. This also spares normal tissue (1). This latter approach - fractionation - is the way radiotherapy was delivered for most of its history. But at these low doses, FLASH sparing is small to negligible.
So, we have two demands in tension - and its unclear which is actually optimal. Some of the early results in FLASH showed huge sparing, but lots of more recent studies have shown more modest effects which may not be worth giving up benefits of fractionation for(2). And to date I think we have basically no meaningful in-human data to guide this, so there's still a lot of uncertainty.
1 - Fractionation also spares tumours, a bit, but you can offset this by increasing the total dose a bit and still see benefit.
2 - There is a general move to somewhat larger, fewer fractions even in normal radiotherapy, although almost all of these are still below the threshold where FLASH sparing is seen.
Another potential factor at play is the accuracy of delivery. It is generally easier to accurately deliver one quick dose vs daily doses over multiple weeks (due to patient positioning errors, the patient losing weight, soft tissues moving around etc).
I actually like the forced saving of Québec. I also have a defined benefit pension plan, a TFSA and RRSP but I am happy to be forced to contribute the RRQ for the general welfare of the province even though I know how manage my portfolio.
Considering that they also have to consider economic development in their investment decisions, the RRQ funds are well managed by the CDPQ.
Here the law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332g it says "shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life." Even conspiring to acquire them is as illegal as possession!
If you truly believe this, slowly divest everything into cash, wait for the crash, then buy back in. Even buying in slowly over the course of a crash, on the way down, will save you a ton of money if you're out before it hits.
But you're more likely to just cash out early, lose a bunch of gains, then buy back in later at higher prices.
If you can time the crash you can make a shitload of money. But you can't, so you'll come out better if you just keep buying in every paycheck and ride it out just like you have been.
There is the separate risk that Microsoft, Google, etc. will have a lower value in two years as governments get their migration off their platforms into full gear
It doesn't have to be 'ride it till it dies' or 'sell everything'. The AI bubble is almost exclusively contained to the US stock market and a few east Asian manufacturers.
You're right that selling everything and 'going to cash' would be a mistake, but diversifying away from US large cap growth absolutely wouldn't. I'm 60/40 stocks/bonds. My stocks and bonds are 50/50 us/intl. ~ 10% of my us portfolio is small cap value.
What's funny to me is that nobody learns from the past. This is far from the first tech bubble we've had even before the .com crash (canals, railroads, radio...). The answer, every time was diversification.
The east Asian semiconductor manufacturers are selling shovels in the gold rush and being very cautious about expansion given how capital-intensive the whole sector is. It's hard to come up with a scenario where they outright lose, even with the bubble popping.
I mean there's also a cost to not expanding too, in that you're leaving money on the table. I doubt they've really been able to resist the siren call of basically being able to print more money, but if the AI bubble collapses and they're left selling most of their production to consumers, they're gonna have a lot of stranded capital. Here's hoping they're smart enough to build a big war chest to weather the storm, but in my experience, companies rarely do.
Invest into stuff that people will need regardless of the bubble popping like medicine, food, internet access, energy, ... . Stay away from luxury/travel stuff.
Also, during a crash there is the so called "flight for quality" where people cash out from risky assets and invest in stable ones that can weather the storm. So, try to invest in assets that are A or above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_Global_Ratings). The chart is for countries, but analysts grade companies as well in case you want to stay away from treasuries/national bonds.
Also diversify geographically. US will likely take the biggest hit if the bubble pops, so perhaps European markets that lagged behind in adopting the technology are safer (IMHO).
Personally, I am preparing by moving money from growth items to stable ones a bit at the time. To diversify even further I am using ETFs that, in addition to what mentioned above
1) pay dividends (whether these distributed or reinvested doesn't really matter)
2) are denominated in or hedged in safer currencies (CHF especially, but also Euro)
You definitely get smaller returns, but the name of the game is to maintain what you have, not to make heaps of money.
Finally, I am not a financial advisor, so do your own valuations/risk assessment analysis.
Current US debt to gdp is 124%, 38.6 trillion.
Japan too at 230-240%.
Bond markets in both are looking seriously unhealthy (Japan going via a Liz Truss moment at present).
If the AI bubble falls over, the US government is going to have to print 5 trillion to cover the bubble at least. The only option there is inflate away anyone holding cash.
If hte AI succeeds and people are replaced, the US government faces a massive fiscal cliff of a loss of tax receipts. They won't be able to service the debt and again will be forced to inflate away.
To service current debt projects, AI growth needs to return some 3.2-3.5%, it is currently 0.5%.
Bonds, equities, USD, and housing are all risk assets right now.
I don't know if your wrong or right about "The Morning Star" but Morningstar.com is a financial firm specialized in research and recommendations. They have a lot's of influence relative to their relatively small holdings.
It's a joke. The Morning Star is well known in the UK as being the mouthpiece of the UK Communist Party. It was originally founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, before becoming the Morning Starin 1966. So the idea of the Morning Star offering a critique of the tech policy of the decadent capitalist running dogs is intrinsically funny from a UK perspective.
But given the downvotes maybe there has just been a massive sense of humour across the pond...
Like I said elsewhere in this thread the bet have to be lost if you want your target dead.
reply