Some of it is a function of my household's love of sports, and their fragmentation across the services. Some of its just sheer laziness to pick one and stick with it or rotate the subscriptions.
I don't think I could realistically drop lower than 3 on this list though: Spotify gets used constantly. One TV/Video streaming service. My wife would likely divorce me if I cancelled YouTube Premium.
I can understand that its tiresome, but its also not new.
Every medium, livejournal, blogger, etc page in the look nearly exactly the same. Or Twitter Bootstrap sites.
I'll give them some credit here: its at least been worked into a terse format unlike a lot of the docs I get from people who seem to think AI's ability to add verbosity is somehow a virtue.
Looking the same is not itself the problem. This is a same-looking that indicates a lack of human thought underlying it. That is a problem, and it is concerning to me if one does not think this.
Honestly, this feels like we're in the Geocities era again. Tons of people are making stuff again.
I'm excited by that.
And even LLM design tropes are better than seeing the same platform design on every page. The same Instagram, Reddit, X pages over and over and over forever. It's monotonous design. Platforms suck in more ways than that, though - you're forced into their constraints, algo bait, spam, hyper-drama, Reddit mods, contrarian view downvoting, etc.
It feels like we're entering the 90's - 2008 era again. The indie web. Microformats and self-distribution and hacking and remixing.
Interesting, as someone who started making sites on geocities I don't find this anything the same. I remember learning tons about weird little niche hobbies and making little learning sites and stuff with my own brand of weird Photoshop graphics.
An llm making the exact same layouts for everyone with obviously zero input from anyone who cares seems absolutely nothing like the old geocities days.
This couldn't be further from the truth. The indie web was exciting because it was the product of distinct human voices. LLMs only speak in one voice (with subtle differences between the major models but similar "tells"). This is why so many people have such an immediate and visceral negative reaction to AI slop. It is distinctly lacking the human spark and it is uncanny and off-putting in that way.
The "industry news and research" part of the AI industry feels very... suspect to me. My intuition is telling me that it's a bunch of people with influencer-y type social media skills and no actual credentials just grifting because there's so much money floating around.
Thank you. I'm spending a lot of time reminding my peers that cheerlead this sort of thing that feedback is usually presented to us a solution, not the underlying problem and that our job is to solve problems, not just vomit out the requested solution.
There no requirement to be long the underlying before buying them though. And most people trading options aren't using them this way. Hedging is a legitimacy figleaf for options, everyone knows that most of the volume is in speculation, especially from retail.
Options on the sports team's parent company. I mean you want to hedge against financial losses due to on-field performance but also commercial performance, right? What is the utility of hedging purely against on-field performance?
1. Very few sports teams I can think of have publicly traded parents
2. On field performance has little to do with financial gains/losses outside of gambling.
> Very few sports teams I can think of have publicly traded parents
Sure, but those are also the only kind where buying options to hedge losses makes sense. For privately owned teams, only the owner(s) ha(s|ve) any reason to try to hedge losses. They can buy some kind of "missed the playoffs" insurance, if anyone will sell it. Mostly though it's part of the game and they just deal with.
> On field performance has little to do with financial gains/losses outside of gambling.
Turning sporting outcomes into derivatives doesn't make it "not gambling" just because you say "but muh hedging strategy". On-field performance impacts commercial appeal and revenue. But ultimately hedging is about covering negative financial impacts, not betting on sporting outcomes. I think we're in agreement on this.
> [Owners] can buy some kind of "missed the playoffs" insurance
I suppose with Kalshi etc. they can today but "insurance" is just another word for 'betting whatever bad thing will happen.' So if an owner bought any kind of insurance that paid them if they performed poorly, I would assume they were going to do things to intentionally degrade their team's performance, and would hope the league would recognize this as extreme moral hazard and kick them out of the league.
I would assume nothing related to a given transaction crosses the cell boundary.
We use a cellular architecture to help constrain the blast radius of a modular monolith. Each one of our customers lives in exactly 1 cell. Any kind of cross-customer BI/reporting happens through a data warehouse.
For what it's worth, it's never too late to keep in touch. You said you wish you'd kept in touch, if you're able, you should reach out. No one cares that its been awhile (and they're equally culpable), most people are happy and/or flattered you were thinking of them.
Right, but the CalPERS is sliced into over 2 million pieces, whereas a family office or gulf sovereign wealth fund has much less divvying up. It looks big until you see it has to be divided 2 million ways, as opposed to maybe 20 ways with a family office. The distribution is unequal. But most asset classes are like that, although less so for a single family house.
Some of it is a function of my household's love of sports, and their fragmentation across the services. Some of its just sheer laziness to pick one and stick with it or rotate the subscriptions.
I don't think I could realistically drop lower than 3 on this list though: Spotify gets used constantly. One TV/Video streaming service. My wife would likely divorce me if I cancelled YouTube Premium.
reply