Interesting. I think people here would agree Social Security is a state pension, we just only call it by its name.

A pension specifically refers to a plan that makes consistent payments throughout retirement and stops at death (or may pass to the surviving spouse until their death). Anything else is a retirement plan if it’s tax sheltered until some age, or an investment account if it’s not.

I hear annuities are unpopular here, most seem to prefer either a dividend strategy, or sell securities as needed to cover whatever Social Security doesn’t.

Really? This is what I see with a simple search:

When you’re able to take your pension, you can choose how and when you want the money. This usually includes the option of taking up to 25% as a tax-free lump sum and using the rest to get a guaranteed or variable income.

Looking more into it, I guess it’s similar?

The 401k typically doesn’t offer the guaranteed income, though I suppose some plans could offer annuities. You can choose to take fixed payments though, but there’s no guarantee how long that will last. I don’t know what the options are in the UK, but in the US, you can do whatever you like, as long as you withdraw the minimum (percentage of assets based on your age, starting at 73).

I see a pension as having some kind of guaranteed benefit. A 401k doesn’t have that, so it doesn’t count.

crashes lead to sub 20 PEs

The 2000 crash didn’t though, it was just over 20 at the trough. Jan 2003 was 21. That was almost as high as the peak in the 60s, and higher than the moment before Black Monday. So the market reverted to a mean that would be considered a peak just 20-30 years prior. 15 used to be a good marker for “average,” and now that’s the marker for the Great Recession.

Crashes used to lead to sub-10s, and now they crash to 15-20. The market has fundamentally changed with 401ks and IRAs.

I don’t think anyone should trust my numbers either. Here’s the CAPE data, make your own decision as to whether the CAPE ratio makes sense going forward.

Pension is the correct English term

I don’t think it is.

A pension implies benefits are distributed to the person in retirement, usually with some fixed amount per month. My understanding is that in the UK, defined contribution plans are required to be invested largely in annuities by retirement, which satisfies that, whereas in the US, 401ks don’t have such restrictions. So a 401k could be depleated well before death, or be passed on to children as inheritance, unlike an annuity. There are required minimum distributions, but they don’t kick in until your 70s.

If 401ks switched to a defined benefit plan at retirement, I could see calling it a pension. But since they’re not, I think that’s misleading, and employer sponsored plan makes more sense.

~37 compared to 15-20 being normal.

15-20 was normal for the 100 years ending 40-50 years ago. But of we look at the last 40 years or so, the CAPE has been higher, suggesting that we don’t know how what “normal” looks like going forward. More people are buying stocks than ever before due to retirement plans and poor bond yields, which pushes up the PE.

So whether ~40 is high for a PE going forward isn’t clear. The CAPE hit ~45 in the 2000 crash, and reverted to ~20 after the crash, yet the 2008 crash only hit ~26 and crashed down to ~14 and quickly bounced back to ~20. The 2008 had little to do with CAPE and more to do with corruption in the banking industry, whereas 2000 was almost purely oversized hype in the burgeoning tech market.

So is the normal range 20-30? Idk. Maybe 20 is actually low going forward, it’s unclear. Either way, 40 isn’t as outlandish as it was in the 2000s, and that pushed up to 45 before crashing.

there is a strong likelihood we are seeing a bubble.

Agreed. But if you drop out of the market and invest in other stuff, you would miss whatever the rest of the runup will do before it bursts, which could leave you worse off than someone just investing in the entire market by market cap. Ot could continue to run for 10-20 years, or it could pop this year, it’s impossible to know since it relies heavily on investors continuing to believe the hype and companies continuing to have something to back up that hype.

Can confirm, circles look like bubbles.

Can you see how dehumanizing that is? Viewing people as cost?

This is how Nazis start by the way, not viewing people as people

The Nazis are a completely different story. It wasn’t that they saw Jews as a cost or as objects, it’s that they saw them as less than objects, they viewed them as actively threatening the country. As in, this was active hate, not apathy.

A business owner is primarily concerned with the health of the business, and costs threaten that health. If mandatory benefits are too high, that may threaten the viability of the business, and limits options for competition.

The counter to this is everyone else voting in favor of mandatory benefits and whatnot. If the system is working properly, both sets of voices will be heard and representatives will push for something for both groups.

Your assumption is that every side serves a purpose. But when we say “hey we shouldn’t kill people” and the answer is “shut up libtard” can you see how they don’t have a “purpose” other than to spread hate?

I assume you’re talking about gun rights? You’re using favorable rhetoric for one side and unfavorable rhetoric for the other. Let’s look at their actual policy proposals:

• Dems - ban “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines
• GOP - enforce current laws

“Assault weapons” have consistently been defined as “scary looking guns,” and each has an equivalent that is less scary looking and just as effective. High capacity mags are easy to jerry-rig from legal mags, and DIY mags are easy to make with a 3D printer and a spring or two. These types of laws are mostly to grab headlines and get someone reelected, not to actually solve any problem.

Likewise, saying “enforce current laws” requires citizens to actually cooperate with police, and for police to actually deserve that level of trust. They don’t lffer any kind of change to police accountability, so this is merely a way to get gun enthusiasts to support them for reelection and not piss off other voters so they can get reelected.

Neither party is actually solving any problems on this issue, they merely speak to their base to get elected. So the rhetoric here should be dismissed, and voters should focus on the issues where the parties are actually interested in doing work (for GOP, it’s mostly taxes and regulations, and for Dems it’s mostly entitlements and regulations; neither party seems to focus on social issues beyond rhetoric).

If you’re talking about something else, then please, elucidate so we can discuss it.

I know who my problem with is, is it’s just hate. Not exclusively politicians, anyone who wants to seee dead.

My point is that the GOP isn’t your enemy, nor are they your friend. In a twin party system, you’re going to have a party that covers each extreme up to the middle.

If you strongly dislike a given party, don’t push against that party (that won’t get anywhere), but instead push against the two party system, because that’s what allows that party to have the power it does. If third parties were viable, neither the Dems or GOP would exist in their current forms. You’d actually know who your enemies are because they’d out themselves by the party they support.

I get that for contractors, get in and get out is the best strategy.

If you’re salary, you own it regardless, so you might as well know what it does.

First off, that’s still indefensible? Like advocating for less worker safety isn’t a good thing right?

I think it makes logical sense. They own a business, so they see everything as a cost, and that includes employee benefits. They’re merely voting for their self interests.

And while I likely disagree with them, I think that’s how the system should work.

The counter to that should be regular people voting for their self-interests. Average people want better benefits and whatnot, so theoretically politicians should take that into account when crafting policy.

The issue here isn’t business owners voting for their self-interest, but a mix of politicians not actually providing good representation and yet still getting reelected (gerrymandering), not having good options (only two candidates are viable), and media spin (again, with only two parties, they need to pick one to get favorable treatment).

why are conservatives in your view just reactionary to what every ‘liberals’ are saying?

That’s their purpose. Conservatives are pretty universally against change/in favor of reverting change, while liberals want more change. Sometimes you want one more than the other, depending on what’s going on.

The problem is that our political system only has two viable options, so both parties jump all over the place to pick up votes and it’s actually unclear why they have the positions they do. For example, Republicans used to be super anti-union (they love representative democracy, but not in the private sphere?), yet they courted labor unions last year. Why? To get swing state voters. They’re less about pushing ideas and more about maintaining power.

The real issue isn’t conservative voters, but our entire voting system. If we had 5 viable parties, people could effectively vote for the direction they want the country to go. If you don’t like the way the GOP is, you should demand more viable options so people can express themselves better.

The furthest I’ve seen is advocating for conservative politicians, which is generally for more favorable tax treatment and maybe some more flexibility in what services they need to provide to their employees.

I don’t think business owners care about the trans community for good or ill. The only reason it seems that conservatives care at all is because liberals are so vocal about it. And liberals aren’t even really pushing for anything to help the trans community, it’s mostly lip service.

The real enemy isn’t you average conservative voter, but specific politicians pushing a populist agenda, which paints trans people as the enemy. If it wasn’t trans people, it would be gay people, some variety of immigrant, etc, the target is less important to the movement, they just need to be weak and unpopular enough for them to get away with it. Again, it’s not your average voter, but whoever is pushing that agenda.

Were the views associated with the company? Or was it purely a personal blog?

The distinction matters. Many people are able to separate business from politics, but some are not. The former aren’t a concern, the latter definitely are.

but you cannot change the parent DB query.

Why not?

This sounds like the “don’t touch working code” nonsense I hear from junior devs and contracted teams. They’re so worried about creating bugs that they don’t fix larger issues and more and more code gets enshrined as “untouchable.” IMO, the older and less understood logic is, the more it needs to be touched so we can expose the bugs.

Here’s what should happen, depending on when you find it:

• grooming/research phase - increase estimates enough to fix it
• development phase - ask senior dev for priority; most likely, you work around for now, but schedule a fix once feature compete; if it’s significant enough, timelines may be adjusted
• testing phase/hotfix - same as dev, but much more likely to put it off

Teams should have a budget for tech debt, and seniors can adjust what tech debt they pick.

In general though, if you’re afraid to touch something, you should touch it, but only if you budget time for it.

Isn’t that a good thing?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t really care what the views of the owners of a business are. It only becomes a problem if they make those views plain.

And Lemmy and Reddit love this guy too.

I think it’s more likely we’ll put solar reflectors in space that enhance power absorption on earth. But there’s no way solving heat dissipation in space is more efficient than getting energy from space to earth. Maybe it would work on the moon where we could dissipate heat into rock, but not in space.

It is AI, along with a bunch of optimization algorithms, statistical decision trees (probably used in adaptive AI in games), etc. AI is a field in computer science that includes a ton of things many wouldn’t consider AI.

Basically, if the solution doesn’t come from direct commands but instead comes from some form of learning process, it’s probably AI.

It’s not “general AI”, but it is in the field of AI.

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.

All we are is dust in the wind…

That’s still faster than this cluster.

I hate it when management comes asking something like, “how are we planning to use AI?” instead of “what tools would help you be more productive?” The first puts me on the defensive, and my answer is “we’re already using various forms of AI, from machine learning to features our tools have,” and that isn’t a productive conversation. The second question is more useful, since I’ll mention things the asker could actually help with, like feedback from other parts of the company, more budget to hire and promote, etc.

AI might be the right solution, and it might not, but you won’t get that answer if you ask the wrong question.