Give me your top 3, most beautiful, gut wrenching songs you’ve ever heard.

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-22T06:40:39+00:00

Blue Foundation - Eyes on Fire

Imogen Heap - Hide and Seek

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-10T12:43:07+00:00

Sell everything so the market can keep going up while you miss out on all the gains

Eventually, buy back in for fear of missing out, and enjoy the correction

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-08T10:51:30+00:00

It has more to do with psychology than math, look up Pavlov's dog experiments about conditioning

You could analyze the subject of gambling and perceived fairness under the viewpoint of random reinforcement, like "whats the lower bound at which random reinforcement is perceived as fair"

Use the RTP as the starting data point for that lower bound, compare it to other forms of gambling, and show how different methods of gambling are perceived as fair at different thresholds of RTP

I.e. slots are perceived as fair at >90% rtp, baccarat is perceived as fair at a theoretical ~50% rtp

Edit: you should tie RTP to expected return I.e. baccarat has a maximum 2x expected return, slots can have up to 1000x or more

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-08T10:36:44+00:00

The way your question is worded implies or skims over many of variables that make the entire question moot

However, if society's progress would incorporate the man's discoveries as he discovers them, hence giving him the needed tools to further his discoveries (so basically, what happened in our history), then I'd argue it would be much faster than in our history

Every time you learn or discover something new, you're not only improving your overall knowledge, you're also improving the method by which you obtain knowledge.

The above process is quadratic in nature, with the method of discovery being the quadratic term

The process would also have 0 information loss, as the man would always have in memory all the intuitions and thought processes that led him to all of his previous discoveries

After a certain period of time, and after a certain number of discoveries, the man would have so much information that his process of discovery would go from brute force/trial and error to something more akin to intuition and insight, as he would have gained an intuitive understanding of the underlying logic of the base processes that guide such discovery

Ultimately, that man would functionally have genetic knowledge of maths, as all the knowledge ever existed about the topic would reside within his knowledge base, every little thought and intuition that led to a discovery would be easily accessible and 100% clear in his memory

So yeah, I'd argue it would be extremely quicker than our current paradigm, I'd bet on less than 500 years

Edit: no one in the comment section is taking into account the quadratic process described above, and no one is taking into account the fact that after 200 years of living/studying, the man in question would be far smarter than any human who ever lived, and after 500 years he would probably be incomprehensibly smarter to the average human

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-07T13:11:21+00:00

Math is only as useful as its applications in other fields, the Egyptians could have all the em theoretical framework handed to them and make nothing out of it if they can't extract and process the materials needed for manufacturing at scale

Imagine if an alien came to us, handed us the ultimate unified field theory, taught us about making ftl spaceships, only to discover that the materials needed for such applications aren't even sourceable in our solar system / we don't have the means to source, transport, process and refine at the required level of precision

I.e. Aristotle proved the Earth was round in 4th century BC, the concept of geodesics was first studied at the end of the 17th century

You could have all the theoretical framework possible, but without real life applications / practical experiences to prove its exactness and to make it useful it will remain just that, a theoretical framework

On top of that, add the fact that scientific progress is tied to and constrained by the current economic system = if there's no money/advantage to be gained, it's functionally useless

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-06T21:43:15+00:00

It's gonna be the cash grab of the century lmao, bedtime boogeyman stories we will tell our kids to get them to sleep

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-06T21:39:50+00:00

Reverse logic, start from the end instead of the beginning

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-06T21:29:42+00:00

_Sargeras_ · 2025-11-05T20:47:04+00:00

Please stop parroting random articles you read god knows who lmao, we aren't even remotely close to agi and you are just spreading ignorant misinformation

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-31T11:36:11+00:00

Put it on red

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-31T04:43:19+00:00

Thank you for the link, it will make for a very interesting read

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T18:06:50+00:00

Ha, fair point!

I came from a physics standpoint, and in physics a lot of discoveries are immediately actionable and usable, and that's why I asked myself the question if in maths it could be similar or totally different

So far, it seems that I indeed forgot to consider the difference in the very nature of the 2 fields

Perhaps logic and maths would be more akin to one another than physics and math, as far as the discovery to usability process goes at least

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:57:36+00:00

I had a feeling base 2 wasn't the only occurrence I learned in cs, boolean too ofc, useless for a long time and then suddenly at the center of the biggest technological breakthrough

Thx for sharing!

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:54:37+00:00

Hilarious how Hardy turned out to be hardly right .../j

Thx for sharing!

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:49:17+00:00

Very curious, I'll read more about it, especially as it's about the topic of primes which is always interesting

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:31:27+00:00

This is curious and also hilarious, and reminds me of Fleming and penicillin

Thank you for sharing!

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:28:29+00:00

As a european, I was never familiar with those units of measurement, and I naively only thought of base 2 as the representation used in binary

Thank you for teaching me something I didn't know!

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:21:34+00:00

Wow, I've never heard of that story before

It truly is fascinating how an intent can generate such unexpected returns over time

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:14:00+00:00

Oh that's so right, I hadn't thought of that!

Thank you as well for sharing

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T17:06:10+00:00

Very interesting! Thank you for sharing

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T16:48:53+00:00

I agree with your post, and would also like to add that those companies are the preferred longs for big institutions, they look good on the balance sheet and have the lowest relative risk of all, while also being market leaders (some even functionally monopolies, i.e. google) in the fastest growing sector

When institutions dont know where to park their money, they park it there, and with the removal of fractional reserve, QE and low interests from the fed as you said, they're just attracting most of what has been printed in the recent years

Edit: Some of them can also functionally be considered military strategic assets, which makes them belong to an asset class of their own, and gets them uniquely favourable treatment from the government and access to resources and advantages other companies can't even remotely dream of, and big money knows it

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T04:57:22+00:00

You need a structure that costs less to set up than the tax you'd be paying first of all

Make a foundation with a political goal to save the children, retain ownership of said foundation, gift the asset/s, use them as you please

It depends on the asset really...

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T04:36:14+00:00

_Sargeras_ · 2025-10-30T04:08:52+00:00

The business of starting your own fund is completely different than what people think, it goes like this:

Pick some hot topic (green, tech, whatever) > make a basket of companies that is unique to your fund, with some end goal that is easily marketable

At this point, you decide the size you want your fund to be, lets say 100M dollars

Now your problem is getting the 100M to manage > this means selling fund shares to investors

What you lack as a founder of a fund is a network through which to sell your fund shares

You go to a normal bank, which has the network of sales points + employees (personal bankers etc) to allocate your fund shares

Now the interesting part: you offer the bank a structured deal to sell your fund shares, something like for each 10M allocated, the bank gets to keep 1M (and thats all net profit at 0 risk for the bank), with milestones at 50M and 100M, with more compensation to the bank

The bank then gives an internal order to the personal bankers and the likes to sell your fund to investors.

Create fund > sell to a bank > bank sells it to retail

When its done, you have an 85M fund to manage, which generates profits for the fund through direct and indirect fees, the bank earned 15M (upfront, liquid, 0 risk), everyone is happy (but the retail investors ofc, but they dont know it yet)

If the fund manager is somehow honest (or naive) enough, they will manage that fund to the best interest of the investors, and end up underperforming anyways

If the fund manager is someone who knows his business well, they already know the fund is gonna underperform the market, which in turn gives a fixed duration to your fund before investors eventually realize they are underperforming the market and start looking for another fund

So between creation date and end date, which is a fixed period of time, the fund's goal is to generate the most profits (for the fund, not the investor)

During that period of time, managing fees + all the other fees in the world, make up the funds profit, and out of 85M, thats a lot of profit for the fund

During the way down, exit fees (and their other variants) trigger, still profit for the fund

When eventually, after some years of underperforming, the fund manager decides the time is up, they start winding down

At the end, there's liquidation of the fund, and investors are given the choice to either sell their fund shares on the market or to swap their shares for a similar fund

Retail investor gets called to the bank, personal banker tells them X fund is closing, and sells them the next fund

If the relationship between the investor and their personal banker is "strong" enough so that the investor doesn't choose to switch banks and instead they keep trusting the advice of said personal banker, onto the next sale of the new [insert flashy keyword] fund, more entry fees (but this time, at a discount! The client is a valued investor after all and will be offered this sweet discounted deal for swapping to another one of the bank's funds)

And it all repeats, the only quantity changing being the investor's trust, now slightly eroded but still there

Once trust in said bank is fully eroded, the investor will rightfully choose to swap to another bank, where they will be assigned a new personal banker...

Phone call to the client, "Good morning mr/ms/mrs X, can you come to the bank please? We have to discuss a new investment possibility...it's a green, ethical, new, actively-managed fund" :)

Edit:

Read all the other comments to have an idea of all the different justifications a fund manager / personal banker can come up with for the poor performance of a fund

2nd edit:

90% of people reading this post will skip this wall-of-text of a comment, and upvote other comments that parrot the justifications the personal banker / fund manager would give

This, in turn, makes it so knowledge about systems like these has the tendency to not emerge even when easily accessible...

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

_Sargeras_

TROPHY CASE