I'm biased since I work for Epic but this part is just not true:
>Epic controls who can access this data, when they can access it, and the terms by which they can access it — despite the simple fact that it is the hospitals’ and patients’ data, not Epic’s
The data is owned and controlled by customer orgs. Most of it is even on customer premises, not in Epic's cloud.
You don't do it that way. As the other poster suggests, you mandate that UI changes can always be rolled back by the user.
It should be illegal for you to change a product you sold me in a way that degrades functionality or impairs usability, without offering me the option of either a full refund or a software rollback.
If that causes pain and grief for server-based products, oh, well. Bummer. They'll get by somehow.
I would go even further than a full refund - that doesn't really make the user whole who will now to have invest time into finding and learning an alternative product.
And even with the ability of rolling back somewhere hidden in the settings, forced UI changes are annoying at best - they should always come at a time chosen by the user (including "never") and not any other time.
This is a good point and is why I prefer to refer to the genre as Speculative Fiction - not only is it broader but it better gets at the idea behind this type of fiction. Not just space lasers.
Why is that an impossible question? I've moved from investing mostly in the SP500 (which is something like %25 big AI companies) to investing into other indices which are not so AI-heavy -- healthcare, infrastructure, etc. I've also put a lot into TSLS (inverse etf for tesla), because I think it is particularly overvalued. I still have a fairly high risk tolerance, but trying to reduce the amount that I'm tied to AI. I'm sure there are even better ways this could be done, but this is a fairly simple way to do roughly what I want.
Edit: Notably, you don't have to fully stop investing in the SP500. If you were previously 60% weighted towards the SP500, you can still reduce your exposure by changing that to 20%, or something like that.
I have been 'raising cash' by selling stuff in my portfolio that seems high risk and is up. I've learned from the past that I end up feeling physically unwell when the portfolio sinks and stays low for a year, some days 1-5% which make me stop looking. Now I'm reducing my risk exposure - yes, that means not literally 'cash' but either a money market fund and a tax-free bond fund. For years I had a lot of gold miners and a gold mining index which only recently popped, I thought that was a 'hedge' but now I am convinced the only hedge is cash or if you know what you are doing, options. Everything is prone to pops and crashes, from big giant index funds, to gold, to bitcoin, to large caps, all the stuff people said was supposed to be a hedge.
For this round I've bought (well, bought and sold, and now waiting to buy via an order) puts on a semiconductor ETF. Since I own some of the stocks, if it goes sky high still I win, if it crashes I win, and if nothing happens I'll have to sell it 30 days before it expires to avoid the theta decay, which starts to really bite in that last month.
No one knows anything - which is the environment I'm learning to operate it.
A very conservative investor, say a boglehead or a 'value investor' would tell you to buy in an index fund and not look, unless you know for sure what you are doing and have done insane research on a company and it's priced low. They would say, buy VTI or VOO if you don't need the money within 5 years, and stop looking at it. Oh, and DCA into it versus all at once.
It’s probably most important to take a long term view of asset allocations, stick to the plan, and be tax efficient. Once you cover that off, the tactical positions can maybe help a touch.
Diversification is the bedrock of portfolio management, meaning owning a range of assets that collectively perform acceptably under a range of scenarios. But it’s generally not sexy, not something you catch individuals bragging about - avoiding permanent loss of capital.
Think about what risk you’re willing to take, in the context of your job/career prospects, current investments etc.
These are things for you to decide. Wouldn’t trust anyone who says buy x without knowing your individual circumstances.
What I can say is there are consistent patterns for many successful investors, and the media will tend to focus on the outliers / lottery winners, which by definition are difficult to emulate / replicate. Be wary of survivorship bias and the narrative fallacy.
If you look at most stock markets over a very long timeline, on average it goes up because the economy is growing. So a very broad portfolio of stocks or ETFs.
Gold is only for very rich people if you want to have something in the case the whole economy goes to the bin.
A friend of mine who is decidedly not rich put her money in gold (via an ETF) two or three years ago and has done very well. She wasn't even trying to do well, just have something that wouldn't get eaten by inflation or crash in a hurry.
During covid you probably wanted a 70/30 split so you didn't get eaten by inflation, but I think 60/40 is probably a safer bet for the average person right now. I'd consider pulling back to 50/50 over the next 6 months to a year so you can loss harvest and skip the capital gains. I'd also consider moving money you don't expect to need anytime in the next decade into real estate.
I'm not really an investor btw, this is just my intuition. I'm curious what others here are doing.
The indices may be inflated but in this environment, treasury bonds guarantee losses (because of explicit inflationary policy. Just look at the real rate of return.) Besides, a 60/40 allocation has not made sense since the early 80s. Morgan Stanley e.g. advised a 60/20/20 with gold: https://www.reuters.com/markets/wealth/morgan-stanley-cio-fa...
> I'm not really an investor btw, this is just my intuition
Don't give advice when you don't know the subject. For a start, there are more than 2 assets. For some, certain corporate bonds look nice right now. Although indices are overpriced and carry risk due to the bubble, much of the wider market is extremely cheap. Developed and undeveloped foreign markets have also been outperforming the US. And commodities...
It’s pretty unpopular, but a properly designed whole life insurance policy is a good stable, growing asset. You can borrow against it at reasonable rates, and it makes a good rainy day fund and risk buffer. You can generally annuitize them later if you wish, providing a stress reduction in retirement which is correlated with longer life, iirc, though that could simply be due to selection bias.
Yeah, not sure how valuable lots of real estate is if there aren't any high-paying jobs nearby, in part due to AI.
And this isn't even about the total number of high-paying jobs. Even having too much income concentration (fewer, but higher paying jobs) will mean that there's less demand at the margin. To put it another way, if the job growth in say, silicon valley, starts to reverse because of AI, there will still be newcomers, but not enough to buy out the available housing at an ever increasing price.
If the price trend ever reverses and holds that way long enough to seem like a new normal, I suspect the price will suddenly correct downwards. Everyone holding on to real estate as an investment will have a great reason to sell once it becomes a depreciating asset. If it goes on long enough, people will be underwater on housing and start walking away.
The price trend is already somewhat flattened, which reduces FOMO. Why buy now when AI is uncertain and the price seems pretty flat?
Those people still need to rent. So as long as the rental income covers the mortgage, you’re ahead of the game and someone is paying an asset down for you.
I'm not sure it's sensible but I have a lot of cash at the moment. I think there'll be a bit of a crash and then it'll be good to invest in stocks bitcoin or whatever. Non crazy might be income generating boring companies like utilities.
I've always used value-tilted indexes, and am hoping that they will suffer less when the bubble pops. With that and a healthy dose of fixed income (which I chose years ago based on an assumption that the equity portion of the portfolio could drop 50% in a downturn at any time) I'm trying to stick to the plan and not try to time the market. Even though it very much feels like the bubble is near its peak (if not just past it!) I do still believe on some level that market timing is a fool's game, so I'm trying to stay convinced that the steps I've already taken are all one can rationally do.
What sort of fixed income that doesn't require much research? A broad bond fund?
What are the implications of bond prices in this dubious interest rate environment? It seems no one knows what the Fed should or wants to do, including the Fed. And if the economy is on shaky ground, won't that be bad for bonds if companies can default?
At least historically, the research I've seen is that one is better off keeping risk in the equity side of a portfolio, not trying to eek out gains on the fixed income side. So that would suggest sticking with intermediate duration, government bond (funds).
You're not expecting it to earn much, but it should hold its value over the long term. This will reduce the expected return of the portfolio, but the goal is to get volatility to a level you can stomach, allowing you to ride out fluctuations on the equity side. Because even though we can all look at the current situation and say the stock market appears overvalued, we can't know how much higher it will go, when we've hit the top, or once it starts declining, when we've hit the bottom. Even experts do no better than luck would dictate at that game.
Agreed on globally diversified value stocks/funds. Personally I still like to have a fixed income cushion as well, though there are certainly arguments both ways on that. (And on whether to globally diversify the bonds you do hold.)
If you are waiting for the output as an indication that a task completed and you never see that output you may think the task is still running but it is actually done.
I didn't want to paraphrase what he said too much, but since you're inquiring, I think the general idea is that multiplayer games strive for particular types of engagement and the techniques that companies use to drive that engagement is often negative. I can see that this also exists in single-player games, particularly in mobile apps. We tend to avoid those as well.
Multiplayer is a special category of risk in my opinion because I was an ever quest player and I built a feeling of responsibility toward the players that were relying on me and this led me away from schoolwork. I'm trying to avoid that same pitfall by still allowing them to game, even in a multiplayer setting, just only to a limited degree.
We simply try to avoid the games that are the most egregious in this particular way because they're the riskiest.
After a ~20 year break from first person shooters I’ve recently played Call of Duty Multiplayer and what struck me was how many superficial skins or various rewards were visible to others - it seems to steer the player to accumulate these things (through play or $), to show others in the game.
And the odd pumpkin heads (literally players with pumpkins as heads) running around coinciding with Halloween.
Very different than Counter Strike circa 2005.
Roughly the same mechanics but much more commercialised, playing to the psychological weaknesses of players.
>Epic controls who can access this data, when they can access it, and the terms by which they can access it — despite the simple fact that it is the hospitals’ and patients’ data, not Epic’s
The data is owned and controlled by customer orgs. Most of it is even on customer premises, not in Epic's cloud.
reply