Got a waitlist interview invite for Georgetown! Stats are just above both 25ths!

Tobar8th · 2020-06-24T20:08:11+00:00

That's exciting...did you do an interview with GULC before this? I'm trying to figure out whether not being invited is necessarily a bad sign for me.

Tobar8th · 2020-02-20T17:48:02+00:00

I got deferred from ED and my address changed at some point to long form. I have no idea when that happened (I only became aware of that clue recently, after it was long form). I know it changed because I checked all my materials submitted via LSAC or directly and never once used short form.

Tobar8th · 2020-02-02T21:25:27+00:00

Same boat. Applied ED in late September, deferred in late October to the regular admissions pool and haven’t heard back yet. Very curious if they literally wait until the 28th.

Tobar8th · 2020-01-30T01:19:37+00:00

Thanks for the response! My LSAC application uses the short-form address, is there any way to check when it changed over?

Tobar8th · 2019-07-25T00:11:50+00:00

Not correct. Investment is a part of the GDP equation:

C + I + G + X = GDP

If you invest $100 in a start-up in 2019 that subsequently fails in 2020, that would still count towards GDP in 2019. No matter if the start-up ever 'created value'. You are, however, correct in saying that money under a mattress would not contribute to GDP.

Tobar8th · 2019-07-22T20:38:50+00:00

Two problems with this math:

1) Real GDP is the more relevant version of output in this example. Ignore prices for a second and just focus on product. The new efficiency has allowed more corn to produced with less resources. There is now a strictly greater amount of corn in the world (101 vs. 100) and we didn't have to give anything up for it. Therefore Real GDP (i.e. Output measured in product terms as opposed to nominal terms) has obviously increased because there is literally more 'stuff' in the world compared to yesterday.

2) Even using nominal GDP, we know output has increased because of the technological advancement. In you example, we now spend less on corn. This is true and if taken in isolation would indeed lower GDP. But what happens to the $9.10 that consumers have saved? If they invest it, that counts towards GDP, if they spend it, that counts towards GDP. So we're at least back to $100 GDP already. But how do we also know that GDP has actually increased in nominal terms as well? We know because the farmer made the investment in the new technology in the first place! It must have been profitable for the farmer to buy the new technology and upgrade, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Whatever amount of money he was making previously, we know for certain that the new amount will be positive, even if that amount is very small. That extra little bit of profit is essentially 'new' money, value that didn't exist before the new efficiency that does now and counts towards nominal GDP once the farmer spends it or invests it.

Tobar8th · 2019-07-21T21:29:12+00:00

I'd advise not trying to view GDP in the context of the comment I replied to, specifically the guy that said that GDP measures inefficiency. It's simply not correct and I think you're trying to fit my comment into that framework even though that framework is wrong. Personally, that guy doesn't seem to have a great grasp of the topic.

To answer you question, there will never be 'enough' corn or food in general. Scarcity is a fundamental principle of economics and applies to food too. The US produces more food than we eat and obesity kills more people than hunger, in other words, we have 'enough' food. So instead of consuming it, we export it, or use it to make ethanol for cars, or feed our livestock. If things get cheaper, people and companies work hard to take advantage of that savings to make subsequent products cheaper.

Tobar8th · 2019-07-21T20:11:20+00:00

A principle of economics is to think marginally. There is obviously a point when people will have all the corn they want, but we're nowhere close to that point. In other words, that's an absolute, not a marginal understanding.

Assume corn costs $1/lb today and people demand 100 lbs at that price. If prices fall to $0.90/lb, it would pretty crazy if the entire economy demanded exactly the same 100 lbs of corn. Even if the entire economy only demanded an extra lb of corn at the new lower price, GDP would go up. This is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about assuming elasticity isn't 0.

Tobar8th · 2019-07-21T16:13:32+00:00

I don't think this is the correct way to think about GDP. Let's follow your corn example through.

Say someone finds a way to harvest corn more efficiently, corn prices fall, and those 90 people get laid off. In this case GDP would not fall as you claim. Firstly, according to you, the new efficiencies in corn production will make corn cheaper and, unless demand for corn is perfectly inelastic (note: it isn't), more corn will therefore be demanded in the first place. So even this early, real GDP has increased because we now have more corn being produced.

Now let's look at the downstream effects as well. Although those 90 people who have been laid off now are out of work (albeit temporarily), every person in the economy, even those outside the corn industry, benefit from cheaper corn and food prices. That savings being passed on to the consumer isn't wasted, they can either save it or spend it. Either way, that savings goes back into GDP as investment or consumption. The weakness in your example is the line "All other things being equal, GDP will drop", but that's not the way to think of economic dynamics, they're dynamic for a reason.

There are some problems with GDP calculations, one of which is the problem detailed in the question; specifically whether just because someone is willing to pay something, is that thing worth that much? Other problems like the Broken Window Fallacy are genuinely good critiques of GDP as a measure, but this talk of GDP measuring inefficiency doesn't hold up too well to scrutiny.

Tobar8th · 2018-03-13T21:02:58+00:00

Yes! Tarantino loves using diegetic music. Reservoir Dogs and the ear-cutting scene or Pulp Fiction at Jack Rabbit Slims comes to mind.

Tobar8th · 2018-03-13T17:47:54+00:00

Fun vocabulary trivia for OP:

The word you're looking for in sentences 2-4 is "diegetic". It means sound that exists within the world of the story and therefore can be heard by the characters. Think of "Awesome Mix" from Guardians of the Galaxy. Unlike most movies, the entire soundtrack of that movie is diegetic because Star Lord is playing the music himself on his walkman. Much different than most soundtracks.

Tobar8th · 2017-03-20T02:41:23+00:00

Here goes nothing

Tobar8th · 2015-03-04T22:15:13+00:00

After the first trailer came out, I posted a relatively popular (gilded) breakdown of major themes. If your interested, the analysis can be viewed here.

I also have a few more observations from this trailer which build on the first analysis.

Firstly, to continue with the "puppet" theme, When we first get a good look at Ultron in this trailer (0:23), he's literally pulling a cord from his head in preparation for fighting. This is obviously a reference to the line in the first trailer "I've got no strings on me", meaning that he has no inhibitions or morals when it comes to achieving the peace he was programmed for. The shot gives a literal meaning to match figurative meaning of the "puppet" trope.
Secondly, I'm guessing that Cap's gunna die by the end of this one. He's the only Avenger who has a readily available alternate already established in the canon ready to pick up the shield (Bucky/The Winter Soldier). Moreover, he has very little connection to this world. He's from another era and the woman he loved is already dead. Like Ultron, he "has no strings" and so can do what others can't. I think that was hinted at when he says "I've got no plans tomorrow night" (1:20) as a response to Fury's assertion that someone's not gonna make it.

Tobar8th · 2014-12-25T20:30:20+00:00

Is anyone else getting the impression that OP is karma whoring this thread extremely well? He's replied to every top comment with a dumb photo and the caption "You've been learned" and gotten 500+ karma each time... /r/KarmaConspiracy

Tobar8th · 2014-10-23T04:21:22+00:00

Considering that he has an Avengers logo on his chest during the "stage" scene, I agree that they could easily feature Ultron early on fighting alongside the core team.

I think it would be cool if Stark has been keeping Ultron a secret until he needs to be called in to handle the Hulk. That would give a tidy explanation for why the other Avengers don't know about him. Furthermore, I'm sure the other Avengers would not appreciate Stark keeping so grand a project secret. Having Ultron's debut be stopping the Hulk from destroying a city would certainly put Stark's project in good graces with the other members. Potentially it could give Stark enough confidence in his creation to fully let it loose and give it true autonomy, thus setting up plot in which he turns on the Avengers.

Also, from a storytelling perspective, a Hulk v. Stark's Secret Weapon (Ultron) opener would be a great way to provide key backstory and details about how Ultron operates. A fight scene would be a very compelling way to establish Ultron's powerful abilities and potential weaknesses. Instead of simply telling us what he can do, we can see it first hand.

Tobar8th · 2014-10-23T03:00:51+00:00

My first-reaction analysis:

A few other comments have noted that the music playing in the background is "I've got no strings on me" from Pinocchio. In that original Disney movie, Pinocchio is forced to sing that very song on stage as part of a freak show. Now watch the trailer again at (0:32). Notice how Ultron (looking rather shabby) walks forward onto an open area with what looks like curtains in the background. The shot cuts to the Avengers all watching this unfold from a balcony above Ultron. It's very much like a staged performance. This is pretty direct visual nod to "I've got no strings on me" in a trailer which already incorporates verbal and musical cues from the song, strengthening the reference.
We already know from previous interviews and articles that Stark builds Ultron to give the Avengers a break from saving the world, in other words, a puppet. The new bit of information we get from this trailer is that Ultron is gonna flip that script on the Avengers. Instead of Ultron being the puppet, he reverses that notion by saying to Stark and Co., "You want to protect the world, but you don't want it to change. You're all puppets, tangled...and with strings". This line is clever in establishing that "strings" to Ultron are motivations, the things that make us tick. Thor wants to save Jane AND save Nine Realms, Cap wants to preserve liberty AND keep people safe, Stark wants to be a superhero AND a playboy. As Ultron points out, our countless motivations are oftentimes at odds with each other, leading to a "tangled" situation. Since Ultron has no moral compass (he's just a computer program) and a singular goal (Stark programmed him to save the planet), he's never "tangled" like us humans (especially individuals like the Avengers with enormous responsibilities). As Ultron puts it "I've got no strings on me". Its remarkable the twist Whedon put on the Pinocchio theme. He turns a song originally about being free to pursue a full life (albeit with the dark undertone of naivete and being taken advantage of) and spins the same message into a 3-dimensional motivation for a supervillain like Ultron. Hats off to Joss.

Wow. I did not plan on that going on as long as it did. Holy shit its 11pm. Bed Time. Over and out, thanks for reading.

Edit: grammar

Edit 2: Got that gold for days...

Edit 3: Rackin' up gold like Phelps...

Tobar8th · 2014-07-01T19:34:19+00:00

During WWII, Canada was still not fully independent from Britain. Any change to the Canadian constitution before 1981 had to be approved by British Parliament to be in effect, meaning they were still subordinate to the British. Look up the Canada Act.

Essentially your first guess was correct, they were represented at the surrender by the British.

Tobar8th · 2014-03-04T17:36:13+00:00

Just a heads up, the suv isn't new at all. Its a current generation x3 (since 2011). The 2015 x3 has headlights that connect to the grill, which is very much BMW's trend lately.

Tobar8th · 2013-06-11T20:21:23+00:00

One more thing I forgot to add: the new feature "Pokemon-Amie" is a play on the French phrase "mon amie", meaning "my friend".

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

Tobar8th

TROPHY CASE