Most Helpful

Republicans, democrats, its all the same. They continue to work together to create conflict for Americans to obsess about, and the media doubles down on it so that the truly important issues can be swept under the rug. Democrats and republicans work hand in hand to make Americans hate one another, get nothing done, all the while the politicians continue to get richer and pass policies that benefits those who fund them (e.g., lobbyists and large corporations). Did you notice how all the big companies came out of the pandemic stronger, yet it was the mom and pop shops that all permanently shut down?
 

The government wants you to focus on less important issues (e.g., any social issue) and to disagree with 50% of America when in reality, 95% of us all agree on the same core issues. We all agree that family is extremely important, that upward mobility matters, education is key for success, and that the healthcare system is fucked. The government uses shit like Roe v. Wade to distract the American people from the much more important issues at hand (e.g., inflation through the roof, no one can afford anything, minimum wage has been the same for 30 years, majority of Americans living paycheck to pay check). 

When republicans are throwing up their hands at democrats and vice versa is when the politicians are happiest. Also the news now is so completely censored it is basically just the government hinting at the conclusion they want you to reach. All news is fucked and unreliable. 

 

Republicans and Democrats rely on each other heavily to make sure that each party doesn’t need to fulfill ideas that they proposed. If a certain party stayed in power for too long, the people would lose trust because these parties never intended to fulfill many of the laws they promised. Instead, both parties blame their inefficiency on the short terms that each president gets. Overall, I agree and think that politics hurts the country a lot

 

Since we’re on WSO you might as well throw in that politicians provide cover for increased offshoring by PE firms + wage compression/increased prices via market consolidation through M&A activity and an increased concentrated investment in real estate (consolidation via property management companies) leading to poorer service and higher prices. People know things are getting worse, but they don’t know why it’s getting worse.

Array
 

Well for one I would diversify the news stations so that the majority aren't owned by 7 massive media conglomerates. Further, I would have more truly independent and politically neutral sources (e,g., BBC News in the UK). I would also focus much more on the data.

Imagine a news sources that called out both parties for the absurdly ludicrous policies and decisions made. Bush, Obama, Trump, have all made plenty of careless or hasty decisions yet find me one news source that calls out both sides equally. 

News today is made to trigger readers, further cementing thier positional alignment with one party or the other. The allegedly non-biased services do a horrendous job of hiding it.  

 

I tend to agree with economist Tyler Cowen we have at best 800 years before nuclear war wipes out most of humanity (not total extinction). I believe he put it best when he said something like, "It's a small probability event, but given enough time it will happen... Acquiring/building nukes will become cheaper/easier as the clock ticks, and you can't always beat Hitler."

Other random hot takes:

- Climate change is a problem, but not even close to being a true existential threat (Not even a hot take, I think this is just common sense to anyone who's done some digging, but to people who are not as familiar, they might see this as crazy).

- Humans won't be able to solve AGI, because it requires understanding the brain at a level I don't see possible. Solving the perception problem may actually be unsolvable, people argue on this though. A conclusion that I have drawn from this, is that Elon's attempt at full-self driving, will fail, if he is attempting to solve it in the way that attempts to build human-like perception in silicon form, which he began indicating in 2021/2022 ("Need to solve biological neural networks"). There will be too many edge cases that ANNs will not be able to solve. Solving intelligence, which is different than solving perception, is also incredibly difficult. I think it's possible but not likely to happen within the next century.

- China will invade Taiwan before the end of 2024. (not that much hot of a take).

- One really hot take just for fun... US and Canadian electrical grid will be taken out within next 100yrs due to a solar flare (fairly common event), even though we have the money and time to upgrade our grid to withstand such an event. Lack of incentive / inability to move quickly with bureaucracy means if there is such an event, we won't be prepared. Consequences of an event would be near catastrophic.

 

Agree with the rest of your points but curious why you think China invading taiwan is not much of a hot take… what evidence do you have? Genuinely curious

 

I don't think it's a hot take, not necessarily because of a high percentage probability of this occurring, but because its rather talked about a lot and not really an original take. I am also not crazy knowledgeable about the situation, but am informed by my reading and fascination with the history of Communism in China (as well as Russia).

Only "evidence" that exists is Xi Jinping's statements on the matter itself. Take this for example, from his July 2021 speech at the celebration of CCP's 100 year anniversary. "Resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a historic mission and an unshakable commitment of the Communist Party of China. It is also a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. We will uphold the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus, and advance peaceful national reunification. All of us, compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, must come together and move forward in unison. We must take resolute action to utterly defeat any attempt toward “Taiwan independence,” and work together to create a bright future for national rejuvenation. No one should underestimate the resolve, the will, and the ability of the Chinese people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity." Some argue that his use of peaceful national reunification, means war is not inevitable. I completely disagree. Xi and CCP do not prefer war, but are definitely prepare to go there if Taiwan will not submit, and they most certainly will not. 

Besides his remarks, increasing build up of military activity in the south china sea is also a pretty worrisome sign. Moreover, I don't think people understand Xi's commitment to Communism. He is a true admirer and scholar of Stalin and Mao (this is terrifying). Taiwan is essentially a fully operating liberal democracy, which is the antithesis to where Xi and the CCP are headed. Xi also understand that he is operating on a timeline as well. Niall Ferguson makes this point I believe, maybe Matt Pottinger (not positive, don't quote me on this one), but if the US is serious about protecting global democracy we will take what we learned from Russia/Ukraine and begin arming Taiwan immediately. I think it was yesterday or today, that China got pissed and demanded we cancel our $100mm weapons/arms deal with Taiwan we just passed last week. So, it is to Xi's advantage to strike sooner than later, as the longer he takes, the more the US can strategize and actually arm Taiwan. Moreover, economic outlook does not look favorable for either country, in my view this will lead US to strongly consider not engaging in another war or at least hesitate, and, I also don't remember where I heard this but I thought it was a strong point (Ferguson or Pottinger probably, they are my go to on China/Russia)... China's growth will inevitably slow, and I think that's happening now, and this will lead Xi to base the legitimacy of the CCP on nationalism leading to the showdown of Taiwan. (I think you can find this argument in one of the hoover institute goodfellows podcasts, I think they had one based solely on China) 

Besides the arguments from others above that have persuaded me, I don't think we have enough leverage to deter China from invading. My personal view is that, taking into account what I said above, I believe China knows that if it were to invade Taiwan tomorrow, at this moment the US may hesitate and not be fully committed to an all out war. 

Militarily, arguments from both sides who think the war will and won't happen, seem to both agree that Taiwan will put up a fight but nothing compared to Ukraine. I don't have the expertise to speak on this, but something to consider.

 

Am mainland Chinese, anyone in China knows what xjp (the fact that I’m typing in shorthand you know whom I’m talking about) is up to. The guy changed constitutions and basically made himself sitting on the spot indefinitely. Dude is up to something big, and as far as I recall, the slogan kids (also me) growing up kept being taught was “for the grand revitalization of Chn”. So yea, reclaiming TW is very imminent.

 

You can download either the summary, technical, or full IPCC report from the link I attached below. I spent nearly a month going through the 2021 IPCC report last year. Here is the most updated (2022 report), which admittedly I haven't read, but from what I've read about the report, no significant developments have been made. Important to note that the IPCC simply reviews the scientific literature, but does not make any policy recommendations. Watch out for when reading about scenarios, as lots of them assume worse case without human action. IPCC website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

Again, I'd like to highlight I am not denying that man-made emissions are contributing to a rise in global warming. Climate change is real, but it is certainly not the end of the world or a climate 'crisis'. I also think the policies of climate change / green advocates is and will continue to have more negative side effects than climate change. (see Sri Lanka article below. and German fiasco). Most of the risks climate change poses, we can easily easily easily adapt to.

Here are some other books I found persuasive:

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Change-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/164293…

https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/15416474…

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950…

https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp…

This guy isn't a scientist and has conflicts of interest with oil, but he is well informed and I found his book pretty eye-opening: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443/ref=asc_df…

Here is a debate where you can listen to both sides of the arguments: 

Really good podcast between a former climate activist and a famous physicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnxz8ek5VtY

Other videos: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3EiaP4Y3Y&t=5s

Here is a good and recent example of how the effects of our climate policies will be worse than climate change: https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/green-dogma-behind-fall-of-…

Another example: Germany Green Party essentially succeeded in shutting off their only clean and plentiful energy source, nuclear powerplants, (if someone is serious about climate change and they don't advocate for nuclear they're just virtue signaling). Then they shut down the majority of their coal plants (keeping only a few open), because they thought they could solely rely on renewables and Russian O&G. Russian O&G accounted for 60% of Germany's energy mixture, which by the way is the dirtiest (emits more C02) produced O&G in the world. Now, since their renewable sources (wind and solar) are unreliable (why? Cause sometimes the sun goes away and we can't store as much energy as needed, and sometimes there is no wind, who would've thought?), they resorted to turning back on their coal fire plants which is the 3rd dirtiest source of energy next to burning wood and literal shit. So not only did they manage to increase their own country emissions by turning on their coal fire plants after decommissioning the reliable and plentiful energy that nuclear could have brought them, Russia had the leverage to cut supply jacking up O&G prices (and this doesn't effect just Germany, they were the EU's biggest supplier of energy as well). The lack of energy supply isn't just like an ahh shucks gas is fucking expensive as shit, these supply problems ripple everywhere increasing prices of almost everything, like production of food. I wouldn't dare make total causal claims about this, but these effects have and will negatively impact the funding and food allocation for the upcoming famine this fall, specifically in African nations (ex., Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya.), where who knows how many thousands are about to starve to death. Meanwhile, the US is so saturated with green idiot policies that our government would rather kill energy projects (ex. O&G lease project in Alaska, multiple oil refinery projects being shut down) to appease climate alarmists, while simultaneously reaching out to fucking Venezuela (which may produce dirtier oil than Russia) and Saudi Arabia (not familiar with quality of their oil, would assume they skip some corners though).

Climate change is a problem but it's not an existential threat. Be skeptical of anyone who attributes some random weather event (forest fire, hurricane, etc.) to being caused by climate change.

 

Just because her novels are entertaining don't make them childish. So easy to dismiss them as childish because they're popular amongst young people, when in reality they're only popular amongst ambitious and smart young people-- the rest are sitting around watching tik toks about socialism and being 'empathetic'.

Besides, Ayn Rand's books are far more complex in reading level than comparable works of philosophical fiction of the era, such as 1984, The Stranger, Brave New World, you name it. A 5 year old could read Bukowksi's ramblings. To Kill a Mockingbird and the Great Gatsby are exceptionally popular assigned reading in middle schools and high schools, do you dismiss them as garbage? They are considered to be some of the greatest books ever written. Many would say the same about Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead (so long as they're not liberals). What 'phase' are you in? Do you sit around reading Heidegger and subscribe to his philosophy because it's the most impenetrable and requires a PhD to understand? Didn't think so. Or do you subscribe to no philosophy, and are just tearing down others for actually having one of their own?

 

Ppl think they're acting in their self-interest, when in reality, they're not

 

IB is a better career than buyside for 90% of people who go into banking (better hours and easier competition than most PE and better risk adjusted pay/downside protection than HF or VC)

 

People tend to overstate the importance of being at no. 1 anything or make everything a binary option (for example if you go down path A you’ll get 100% of the success whereas path B will get you 0%).

I have always found that this meant there was way better risk reward with something ranked second vs. ranked once - specially in a field as competitive as this. Let me highlight it below:

I could have applied to a target vs. non-target but I knew just getting into a target would have meant I probably wouldn’t have gotten a full-ride and or I wouldn’t have gotten in if I said I needed scholarship. Vs my non-target where I got the top-level scholarship offered to incoming students. There were a program where I could have either applied to the target or my non target. I selectively chose non target since my risk reward was so much better. I know multiple perfect scorers on SAT/ACT with great leadership ECs etc who didn’t even get into the target let alone get the scholarship. I survived that to get to the stage where I could recruit for IB where instead of having to compete with tons of hardcore finance bros I was literally the big fish in the pound (vs. being near the lower half of the applicant pool at a target) all because I went for the no. 2 not no. 1.

Here I could have gone for the glamorous groups but I realized many of the people avoid the niche groups (FIG / O&G) so I actually made a case to pursue those opportunities because again the risk reward was there. I got into the top group of the niche coverage which wouldn’t have been possible otherwise but because people look down on these opps I could break in at a level higher than if I went for the best coverage. I am at the top of my class again. People get MF exits from my group too and I can always lateral out if I want but again focusing on no. 2 here allowed me to compete at a higher level than if I focused on say no. 1.

My hot take is people so fiercely focus on no. 1 that sometimes no. 2 is the better option (it almost always flies much more under-the-radar) since iyou can get so much more out of it for the same level of input.

End of hot-take.

 

Kudos to you for breaking in from non-target and getting top of your class. I believe this approach works in certain instances, however, in the moment looking forward, you will not always know for certain that it will be a better choice to take a full ride at let's say GWU over Georgetown, or take FIG/O&G over TMT/C&R. For all you know, there could have been many others who also tried taking the less competitive option but had very different results (ended up in back office rather than IB, burned out from miserable lifestyle in FIG etc.)

 

Yeah, I get you - I am not saying going to a non-target is better. It's all relative - and obviously a hot-take thus the comment - but I think anyone who's cut out for the target (or the 1st choice path) but not necessarily at the top of that pack, should highly consider going down the 2nd path. Let me try and illustrate it in the example below:

Goldman recruits on campus at both Wharton and Hamilton. Now there's a student who got into Wharton and Hamilton both, but he's in the bottom half of the students at Wharton - say either he has below average GPA, SAT, has a couple of internships lined up (obviously he won't know this before freshman year) but not IB or not at a BB like some of the other, most competitive Wharton kids. A kid like that - someone who's competitive enough to get into a target but not at near the top of the pack, I would say he's the type of kid who should go down path B. In this example, on a per-capita basis (with those applying for IB positions as the base) hamilton probably gets just as many GS placements as Wharton if not more. However, at Wharton, that kid would be a middle-of-the-road candidate amongst extremely competitive, hungry students. Not saying Hamilton is full of dumb people (it has a very smart student body) but a guy of Wharton's caliber is probably gonna be at the very top at Hamilton, and holding all else equal will have a much higher chance of landing that very same opportunity from Hamilton than if he was enrolled at Wharton. You become the bigger fish in a much smaller, less competitive pond, and that guy who got into the 1st rank place, will still place/do extremely well even from the 2nd choice place - except now he gets to shine.

Similarly for other choices, etc. Hope that example better illustrates my thoughts. 

 

Thank you. I had to turn down an ivy for cost reasons and your story is inspiring.

 

Solar is bullshit if we think it can be the or one of the main components of our energy composition, just like wind turbines (those from Texas should understand this), they are way too unreliable. Moreover, we are unable to store the energy (battery physics are not there yet), massive land requirements which people will rightly be against. Smaller issue, from LA times article just the other day, on solar panels, "... contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium." I.e., there is a recycling issue as well.

 

I don’t think we’re allowed to share those pictures here.

Only two sources I trust, Glenn Beck and singing woodland creatures.
 

We should euthanize everyone over 80 (unless they can pass certain physical/mental tests)

 

We should euthanize everyone over 80 (unless they can pass certain physical/mental tests)

This is already happening with the vaccines.

 

The one MS is from an ex-Juilliard student "improvising" over Autumn Leaves in the Metro for the 100th time today. Unfortunately, no amount of wah-wah can make him into Miles Davis. Sad!

...and the Truth shall set you free
 

It's easier to fulfill your material desires than to renounce them, and a few of us have this the hard way.

Applied to IB, its easier to get into finance, sweat your ass off and pull big pay checks than to recognise it's a shitty job in current context, destroys your soul and that there are more creative and fulfilling pursuits out there that the internet has since provided us