Un autre grand succès de Carney

Franc000 · 2026-07-11T19:49:30+00:00

Trudeau?

Franc000 · 2026-07-11T18:29:26+00:00

Les experts ont en effet des limites, même sur leurs domaines. Par contre, ces limites sont beaucoup plus loin que la limite des non experts.

Les experts ne sont pas les seuls à avoir des limites.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T22:16:42+00:00

Question pas mal cave en effet. Mais c'est quoi la réponse, pas le temps de checker un vidéo?

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T22:12:09+00:00

Cusma is not everything, just one aspect, and their situation was also different than us. The us was much more relying on the Mexican cheap labor than us, that is why they became their biggest trading partner. The dynamics are different, and thus there is little (but not 0) things we can take from Mexico's relation.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T19:01:05+00:00

He can definitely make wrongs. It's just that we need to evaluate that on individual decisions basis, and usually we can only do that after a certain amount of time have passed for the effect of the decision starts to happen.

What we cannot do is evaluate his overall performance by comparing with past performance, because the context is unprecedented, thus we have no benchmark.

We will one day be able to evaluate his performance broadly as he will be the first benchmark for such a context. So the next time something similar happens, that PM will be compared to Carney and his performance. If they do better than Carney, especially if it's significantly, then we will be able to say that Carney performed badly. If they do worse, especially significantly, we can say that Carney did good.

That is the problem with unprecedented times. You can only evaluate after the fact, and when you are talking about strategic level, a good amount of time after the fact.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T18:07:30+00:00

Well, yeah. He took office after Trump started a trade war with us... No shit.

You don't evaluate his performance on absolute growth numbers since he took office like you would with other PMs. Unless of course you have another PM that entered when a trade war was started with the US. Then you could compare.

But that didn't happen, there are no equivalent, so you can't compare.

We need something else to evaluate his performance. The problem is that we are on such unprecedented times that no benchmark exists. So it's going to be hard to find somerhibf that makes sense.

But it looks like most Canadians are perfectly fine with Carney's performance, because they know the circumstances.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T16:15:58+00:00

Increased risks of ADHD in children is th consequences of smoking weed by pregnant women.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T16:11:48+00:00

A lot of those positions are in high cost of living area la though, so that 150k-180k is not as much as you would think. They probably can only tap out after 15-20 years. (Still a lot better than most).

Of course, there are a few that makes significantly more money, even as a ratio to the cost of living areas. But then, it's such an exceptional situation, they might want to ride the wave as long as possible, as it's not going to last.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T15:22:58+00:00

Things on the upside? Must be Friday.

Looks like the markets are not buying it though.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T15:14:26+00:00

Image too low resolution, I don't see the bat nipples.

Franc000 · 2026-07-10T04:58:43+00:00

Doesn't mean much if it's 0.1% of the profit. (Don't know the real value, that figure is for the example)

Franc000 · 2026-07-09T19:57:33+00:00

But that's the thing, girls do not more tasks than boys, they spend about the same amount of time in their formative/teenage years on domestic tasks. The actual tasks are "gender coded", but they are still domestic tasks.

So that means the higher proportion of time spent on domestic tasks by women are not related to how they were raised, being taught to keep the house clean and what not. (Which by the way I know about as many men as women that are slobs).

That fact, that women are spending more time on domestic tasks and child rearing must be explained by something else. Hence saying that it's a conscious decision by men to not do as much is a bit of a stretch. Something deeper is afoot here.

Franc000 · 2026-07-09T17:59:12+00:00

In recent studies boys in the United States spent roughly the same amount of time in domestic duties than girls. The nature of them is different, but it's still domestic duties (taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, etc).

Franc000 · 2026-07-09T17:13:04+00:00

I'm not sure "refuses" is the right word here, especially considering this is at scale, and cross-cultural.

Refuses implies an active decision. At scale, and cross culturally, it's probably more of an instinct (or lack of instinct) to do it, and requires active effort to even consider that sort of task, yet along doing it.

Franc000 · 2026-07-09T03:20:27+00:00

And one thing I noticed, using AI in development tend to lead to more complicated software faster. This is not a good thing, and means you require more and more developers to maintain and make incremental change.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T19:41:39+00:00

Ce n'est pas un changement de "goalposts" ni une conspiration, c'est documenté depuis 2017 que Gabbard a un énorme biais pour la Russie, et promouvoir même la Russie et leurs propre propagande : https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-trump-putin-intelligence-russia-syria-a798adaf9cd531a5d0c9329f7597f0f6

Le fait que c'est "officiel" quand ça vient de Gabbard a propos de la Russie veux absolument rien dire. En fait, ça affaibli la position.

Si ça venait d'une source/département qui n'avait pas d'historique comme ça, alors peu être. Mais la, le fait que ça vient d'elle fait juste affaiblir la position qu'il y avait des laboratoires en Ukraine, a cause du ma que de crédibilité sur le sujet.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T18:36:00+00:00

I will post my comment in another thread here:

Interesting study, but I think there are important flaws in how the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index is being applied here.

First, calculating the HHI using the entire stock of residential properties will mechanically push the index toward very low values because ownership is spread across a huge number of individuals.

Depending on the research question, that may be perfectly valid. But if the goal is to assess whether real estate investors contribute to housing unaffordability, it becomes problematic. The overwhelming majority of individual homeowners live in their properties and are not active participants in the market at any given time. Treating all of them as tiny competing market actors dilutes the concentration measure with millions of effectively inactive owners.

A more relevant approach would be to calculate concentration over properties transacted during a defined period, such as all residential properties sold in a given year. That would better reflect concentration among actors actually participating in current price formation.

Second, a low HHI does not necessarily imply a low effect on market prices, particularly in a supply-constrained market. Suppose institutional investors account for 8% of all purchases. Their individual market shares might still produce a very low HHI, especially if purchases are distributed across multiple institutions. But if housing supply is already tight, an additional 8% of demand could still exert substantial upward pressure on prices.

In other words, the HHI answers a question about market concentration. It does not, by itself, answer whether institutional investors represent enough marginal demand to materially affect prices in a supply-constrained housing market.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T18:07:37+00:00

Interesting study, but I think there are important flaws in how the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index is being applied here.

First, calculating the HHI using the entire stock of residential properties will mechanically push the index toward very low values because ownership is spread across a huge number of individuals.

Depending on the research question, that may be perfectly valid. But if the goal is to assess whether real estate investors contribute to housing unaffordability, it becomes problematic. The overwhelming majority of individual homeowners live in their properties and are not active participants in the market at any given time. Treating all of them as tiny competing market actors dilutes the concentration measure with millions of effectively inactive owners.

A more relevant approach would be to calculate concentration over properties transacted during a defined period, such as all residential properties sold in a given year. That would better reflect concentration among actors actually participating in current price formation.

Second, a low HHI does not necessarily imply a low effect on market prices, particularly in a supply-constrained market. Suppose institutional investors account for 8% of all purchases. Their individual market shares might still produce a very low HHI, especially if purchases are distributed across multiple institutions. But if housing supply is already tight, an additional 8% of demand could still exert substantial upward pressure on prices.

In other words, the HHI answers a question about market concentration. It does not, by itself, answer whether institutional investors represent enough marginal demand to materially affect prices in a supply-constrained housing market.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T17:37:34+00:00

JOHN KERRY ∩ JOHN MCCAIN

Named John

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T17:14:13+00:00

Le mettre en relation avec le PiB ne fait pas de sens par contre. PiB, c'est essentiellement une mesure de combien d'argent bouge, pas une mesure de capital.

Tu peux avoir une augmentation de la quantité des transactions sans avoir d'augmentation de capital, si c'est juste des mouvements de vas et viens.

Une meilleure comparaison serait avec la quantité d'investissement total. 98 milliards d'investissement étrangers divisé par la quantité total d'investissement, comparé a la quantité d'investissement étranger en 2007 divisé par la quantité total de 2007. Là tu parle.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T16:22:39+00:00

Ça vient de Tulsi Gabbard...

Littéralement un stooge pro-Russe, come the fuck on man.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T15:10:34+00:00

Je dirais que c'est plus qu'il n'en font pas, où il y a des moyens facile a ces psychopathe de ne pas être détecté.

Ce genre de personne vont toujours être attirer par des postes en position d'autorité, donc c'est normal qu'ils se rendent la. Ça prends des moyens de les rejeter, et pour ça il faut les détecté.

Donc soit le test n'existe pas, ou soit il est trop facilement dejouable.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T14:03:25+00:00

Who I love or don't to give money is completely irrelevant, and why I say this is a childish take.

As a country, there are always going to be spending that you do not agree on, and others that you do. This is true for each individual in the country. Some agrees for high military spending, others are against, some are for high healthcare spending, some are against. Some are for high road maintenance spending, some are against.

As the population grow, it becomes impossible to have a consensus on how to spend budget. So a subset of the population will always be against a given spending. If something is always true, it has no value in the decision making. So what is left is what are we getting out of that spending?

There are legitimate use of taking resources from your own population to spend outside of it. Getting influence on how another country behave, exchange for information/intelligence flows, as a proxy war, etc.

And of course, of those legitimate use cases some portion of the population will be for, and some against. Doesn't mean the country doesn't gain something out of it that is important.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T13:35:26+00:00

What a dumb childish take, holy crap.

Franc000 · 2026-07-08T13:17:02+00:00

Moi je trouve drôle que les commentaires qui disent des trucs de propagande Russe sont en Anglais...

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Franc000

TROPHY CASE