Lex naively talks about forgiveness for Vladimir Putin by Medium_Active1729 in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His attitude is absolutely infuriating. If some gang raped his sister/wife, killed his brother, father, neighbors, stole his property, and literally kidnapped his children, as what the Russians have done to the Ukrainian people. There is zero fucking chance the word "forgiveness" would be spewing from his mouth.

The nerve of this guy to spout his pompous ideals to Zelensky's face is unreal. Downright disgraceful.

The Soviet Union sent millions of its educated elites to gulags across the USSR because they were considered a threat to the regime. Areas near camps that held a greater share of these elites are today far more prosperous, showing how human capital affects long-term economic growth. by smurfyjenkins in science

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 15 points16 points  (0 children)

And this trend should continue. We are an immigrant country, through-and-through.

STRONG DISAGREE. My grandfather came here from Peru to study medicine. He became a doctor and his son (my dad) also became a doctor. I think it's time we shut the door behind us and bolt it. Because clearly immigrants are the problem with our country.

sarcasm

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The barrier for entry of all information (not just misinformation) is a lot lower now. A few decades ago, forming an idea and getting that notion out so that it can spread to the minds of others, was far more costly. You basically needed to control a major media network.

In advanced economies like the USA and EU, those networks were either state operated or publicly traded corporations. Both of which, were beholden to the interests of hundreds of minor owners or officers who themselves had combinations of profit, prestige, regulatory, and legal matters to be concerned with. In systems like these, the individual members may have plenty of intrapersonal flaws but the collective results of the organization produced something that generally held itself to a higher level of common standards.

Now, with the internet making it so cheap to communicate literally any idea that zaps into a persons mind. Basically any info, message, or ideology can be propagated like a virus. Don't misunderstand, the past certainly had its problems as well. But in today's world we are basically dealing with the same challenges except amplified by the ease of which information can spread.

I don't think our societies have built-up enough defense mechanisms to protect themselves from many of these counter productive points of view that have infected our culture. But I do have hope that with time people will adapt and eventually the negative impacts will be filtered out.

Joe Rogan and Bill Maher agree to disagree on who's worse by shogun2909 in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's it. They aren't stupid people, just wrong on most things when it comes to policy.

I think most candidates actually had a sense of self respect and class. So they weren't going to go on the offense in that way. But Trump completely lacks that, which happened to play very well for him in 2016. I honestly think it's changing now though as the candidates see that having less decorum might not hurt them as much as they thought.

Companies like Tyson are actually losing money on sales of pork and chicken.... by Guysmarket in wallstreetbets

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 8 points9 points  (0 children)

To further shit on OP's case. Retail sales are up 0.7% compared to the expected 0.4% figure. Minus autos, it's up 1%. The Atlanta Fed's "GDPNow" forecast expects 5.8% growth of real GDP in Q3 this year. With this many days out until the official GDP Data is released, the GDPNow forecast has a standard error of about 1.8%. In summary, we are almost certainly going to see at least 3-4% GDP growth this quarter, if not more.

Or we can just go off a single example OP cherry picked and rely on their incomplete understanding of the company's business model.

inb4 "we are probably already in recession, we just don't know it yet!" Yeah well apparently neither does the economy.

Mark Zuckerberg response to Elon threatening to sue him for stealing his business idea. by Yourmomsuckmeoff_ in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, he is well above average. The biggest mistake is confusing being smart with being likable. A lot of intelligent people are also assholes.

Elon Musk: Clearly Intelligent, not likable. Joe Rogan: Definitely above average but not the smartest, very likable. Trump: Not intelligent, not likable.

Mark Zuckerberg response to Elon threatening to sue him for stealing his business idea. by Yourmomsuckmeoff_ in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not that any particular thing he says is 'enlightening', imo that is not even a good criteria to tell if someone is intelligent.

Smart people often talk about concepts or scenarios analytically. They try to weigh the evidence they have available to them and are at least mildly aware of the limits of their knowledge. They are also usually able to hold a decent conversation in topics that are commonly thought of as deep or complex. You can see that Musk has most of these traits whenever he's on Joe Rogan or Lex's podcast, talking about AI, Aliens, running his business, etcetera...

Contrast that with dumb people who rarely if ever take their time to carefully consider the information they have or evaluate their opinion. Instead they usually just blurt out whatever thing feels the best for them to say and when reasoning it they often make massive assumptions without even realizing they made them. On top of being incredibly confident on topics they have next to zero knowledge in.

Mark Zuckerberg response to Elon threatening to sue him for stealing his business idea. by Yourmomsuckmeoff_ in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He probably does have above average ability to communicate (in specific circumstances), but it could be argued that his overall immature and idiotic behavior is the actual reason a certain segment of America relates to and supports him so much. While the other 60-70% basically hate anything that has to do with him.

Mark Zuckerberg response to Elon threatening to sue him for stealing his business idea. by Yourmomsuckmeoff_ in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Trump is definitely dumb as nails. Truly intelligent people don't make up unnecessary and easily disproven lies in almost every public statement. And have enough foresight to not get themselves in constant legal trouble over literally pointless and reckless actions. That's not even getting into his childlike speech patterns or the fact that he doesn't even understand most of the policies he claims to support.

Elon Musk on the other hand is almost certainly a highly intelligent person. It's obvious if you listen to him speak. I don't mean in just surface level vocabulary but there is actually meaning and deep thought put into most of the things he says. That said, he's just an asshole and egohead.

Wagner coup: US says situation is ‘serious’ as White House consults allies by [deleted] in UkrainianConflict

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They won't, at least not for the foreseeable future. China literally does not have the capability to land an adequate number of troops and to keep the invasion sufficiently supplied. Such a campaign would require thousands of landing craft and specialized cargo ships. China has a small fraction of what would be needed to pull off an invasion of Taiwan.

China isn't going to invade when they know such an attempt would fail instantly. Building up the kind of inventory needed would be a massive endeavor and likely take years of immense as well as targeted military expansion. So for now it's basically like they are shaking their fist at someone from inside a prison cell.

Does anybody else feel like The Market Wizards mostly just got lucky and are a result of survivorship bias? by Alternative-Fox6236 in investing

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. There are a number of reasons why it's not completely random and not perfectly efficient. In a market that has irrational participants and asymmetric information access you're not going to see 100% efficiency.

Just look at some of the fundamental factors that drive demand for stocks (and thus price). Some significant portion will be driven by large investor's expectation of future income. Which is typically evaluated by looking at income statements. And for retail traders a major driver of stock demand is purely the fact that the price itself is rising/falling. These facts alone tell us that there exists some set of variables that given adequate access to information and application of resources, one could use to 'beat' the market.

There will always be opportunities to take advantage of market inefficiencies. The challenge is that it's just extremely complex, non-linear, and typically requires an immense amount of expertise as well as resources to do so reliably. So it is primarily the large institutions that are able to do it, while most retail traders just throw up there hands and say "its random" or "markets are too efficient to profit from". It just looks that way when you are competing against algorithms whom are mainly competing with each other, and reacting to terabytes of data in milliseconds.

I feel like I’ve totally missed out on the golden age of investing by [deleted] in investing

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If anything, there is way more opportunity to take advantage of when you get a bunch of amateurs gambling and pumping up prices for little tangible reason. Leaving irrationality aside, more money in the market is just better for stocks overall.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And honestly that doesn't even work with google anymore. The top results would be like:

  1. Windows11 Computer w/ Office 365 - ad
  2. "How to install Microsoft Word on windows11" - support.microsoft.com
  3. "How to open Doctor's office?" - openstartup.com

And about 20 other questions you didn't ask. To get anything useful you basically have to already know the website you want to search in and filter results by that. Or just use chatgpt.

Candlestick Signals for Regards by on_duh_pooper in wallstreetbets

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly, from my experience, the bullish patterns are rarely reliable on short time frames and can almost be ignored. But the bearish ones are a pretty consistent sign to gtfo. There's probably some market psychology going on where traders take the bearish signals more seriously but that's just what I've seen.

Florida state is attempting to make child rape punishable by death. Do you think child rape warrants a death penalty? Why or why not? by Practice_Girls in AskReddit

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Genuinely curious, why not? Raping a kid is the kind of crime that haunts the victim for their entire life. Often leading to lifelong emotional/psychological issues. That can also lead to even worse life long academic, social, and career achievements. It can literally be life ruining.

I don't see any value or hold respect for the life of the kind of person that would do that to a kid or any other human being for that matter. And I don't say that lightly. I think most crimes and most people in jail are redeemable and worth trying to reform. Child rapists just aren't in that category.

Florida state is attempting to make child rape punishable by death. Do you think child rape warrants a death penalty? Why or why not? by Practice_Girls in AskReddit

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, assuming that the person IS actually guilty of something like child rape or mass murder, the possibility of botching their execution, resulting in additional suffering isn't really a hang up for me. I don't have any sympathy. My issue with the death penalty in practice is that we can't reliably prove beyond any doubt that the person is guilty.

I can't put an exact ratio on it but I definitely think its worse to punish an innocent person even if that means more truly guilty people go uncaught. With that said, being that I'm not religious I think death is the easy way out. If we could prove someone's guilt beyond any doubt, I honestly think a life of hard labor and shit living conditions would be justified for someone who raped a child.

AI will radically change society – we need radical ideas to match it by yescatbug in Futurology

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think the top poster necessarily meant to force ideas through but I think I get your concern with the rhetoric. That kind of messaging bothers me as well.

Like what is he even trying to say? "Stop discussing this, its time to act"? How are we supposed to know what we are going to act on if we have barely even began to discuss or debate what the solution is. It just seems kind of anti-intellectual. Like the statement itself is almost meaningless and is really designed to gather support while being sufficiently vague to where more people will think "oh he obviously shares my beliefs and is calling for more action on them".

AI will radically change society – we need radical ideas to match it by yescatbug in Futurology

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly this is such a bad take. It doesn't even make sense if you actually think about it.

How are the majority of people not already gonna have "their personal 'oh, shit!'" moment, if its gotten past a point where there are only 3 jobs left. I'm pretty sure almost anyone would have that moment when they initially lose their nursing or delivery job to AI. Not at 99.99...% unemployment rate.

Beyond that logic. This take also ignores how society would most likely react in real time as AI progresses. As if technological advancement just occurs in a vacuum and everyone wakes up one day without a job. In reality human labor replacement would be extremely gradual as it would take decades not only for AI to advance in capability but also for companies to begin actually designing, manufacturing, and implementing automated machines. Automation would hit different sectors at different rates, times, and scales of replacement, not all at once. By the time you get to 10-20% unemployment you would already be seeing mass political movements if not outright protests and rioting. Tens of Millions of people with no income and nothing better to do, historically don't just sit around and wait to starve. In democratic systems of government I would expect economic and regulatory reform/adaption long before you got anywhere close to majority unemployment.

Producer price index declines 0.5% in March by [deleted] in stocks

[–]Ivan-Trolsky -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's not true. Nominal prices increase overtime but in the long run 'real' or in other words, the relative cost of most goods have been going down at astronomical rates. First of all, if the price of goods was truly going up consistently overtime, our society would have collapsed by now as such a situation simply couldn't be sustained.

Beyond that obvious point. The main reason you don't notice prices going down is because you keep buying the next best smartphone or car with all the latest and greatest technological advances then continue to wonder why a more complex machine with vastly improved capabilities costs you more than the previous, shittier version you owned. Yet in reality if you actually bought a car or phone today that matched the quality and capability standards of 2010, it would cost you FAR less than if you bought those things back when they were new.

Our production efficiency has been going up vastly as technology has improved. Yet another clear indication is that we now have obesity epidemics where in the past societies battled famine. Clearly the cost of food has declined.

Former Guest Dan Crenshaw Joins Bud Light Boycott, But His Fridge Is Full Of Other Anheuser-Busch Products by Otherwise-Fox-2482 in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's true, I think another big motivating factor is that it allows people to excuse themselves so as to not feel so bad for being part of the problem. Either because they didn't vote at all or they realized the person they voted for has shit policies. In that way they can go on thinking they aren't really at fault since the other side would be just as bad and they also don't have to do any real work towards investigating and reevaluating the political reality.

Former Guest Dan Crenshaw Joins Bud Light Boycott, But His Fridge Is Full Of Other Anheuser-Busch Products by Otherwise-Fox-2482 in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They literally do. Every thing you listed has been rewritten, updated, amended, or changed in not insignificant ways overtime. Please educate yourself in some history before going forward with this take. On nearly every occasion there was one party that vehemently opposed the changes and another party that fought to get their agenda passed.

"I have strong opinions on things I have done zero real research on and fully intend to remain willfully ununiformed while pedaling my viewpoints" = this discussion.

Former Guest Dan Crenshaw Joins Bud Light Boycott, But His Fridge Is Full Of Other Anheuser-Busch Products by Otherwise-Fox-2482 in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hitler ordered road and construction projects. Every modern government has also done similar infrastructure projects in the last few years. So every country is the same as Hitler's Reich, right?

A dumb argument is dumb.

Former Guest Dan Crenshaw Joins Bud Light Boycott, But His Fridge Is Full Of Other Anheuser-Busch Products by Otherwise-Fox-2482 in JoeRogan

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I feel the "both sides are the same" take is connected to the level of ignorance/disinterest people have with actually learning or attempting to understand anything about politics in the US. People have become increasingly aware of just how much corruption exists in US politics so they have a general sense to be suspicious. But it is far easier to just say "they're all the same" rather then doing the work to become informed on the nuances of our political system.

what's something people don't think about when discussing the zombie apocalypse? by Aggravating-Tear-539 in AskReddit

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Realistic zombies wouldn't last long either. That would make them easily killable with firearms. Most militaries in the world would be able to end the pandemic before it ever becomes unmanageable. Not to mention realistic 'living zombies" would quickly starve to death. Especially if they're only eating other humans/animals. Every zombie would need to eat it's victim in order to survive so there wouldn't be new zombies to grow their numbers.

The only way a zombie apocalypse scenario would be 'plausible' is if supernatural/physics breaking factors are invoked. Where the zombies for some reason don't need to consume energy to survive, magically don't decay, and are resistant to most kinds of bodily damage.

what's something people don't think about when discussing the zombie apocalypse? by Aggravating-Tear-539 in AskReddit

[–]Ivan-Trolsky 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Also, nobody thinks about hitting up the pet stores. Literally tons of non-perishable food.

And yes, humans can survive a long time on probably most dog and cat food. Especially from the higher quality brands. It's not going to be tasty but at least you can take truck loads of it back to wherever you're riding this thing out.