I'm working on a project where you can run your own experiment (or use it for real trading): https://portfoliogenius.ai. Still a bit rough, but most of the main functionality works.
These product might be great, but seriously, who's choosing those names? Trainium, Inferentia? It's like let's just take the words from what they do, and put a little Latin twist on them? I know naming things is one of the great problems in computer science, but really they could come up with something a little better.
Just to be fair, they compare every congressperson who becomes a leader with a “regular” (non-leader) congressperson who entered Congress in the same year and is from the same political party. Alternative view: people who becomes leaders are just more capable and better at selecting stocks?
> we find that lawmakers who later ascend to leadership positions perform similarly to matched peers beforehand but outperform them by 47 percentage points annually after ascension
If what you’re positing were true wouldn’t they have outperformed their peers before ascension as well
The very first sentence of the linked article contradicts your alternative theory. These leaders performed similarly to their peers before ascending to leadership.
I wish there was an index where not all countries are weighted equally, but according to their desirability. Multiply each country by some factor which is defined by how many people would list it as their desirable destination. The index where France and Tuvalu are both counted equally makes no sense to me, with all due respect to the latter.
I mean, a major reason the US fell in the ranks is because Brazil has stopped giving the US, Canada, and Australia visa-free access, Vietnam didn't include the US in the list of countries it chose to extend visa-free access to, Venezuela has extended visa-free access to a number of EU and EFTA members, and Papua New Guinea extended visa-free access to a number of nations recently. Also, the UK has begun enforcing the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) on all countries excluding Ireland, which means the UK is no longer visa free.
The UK's ranking fell for similar reasons as well.
If not having visa-free access to PNG or Venezuela is a metric, it's not a fairly relevant metric, or at least a very lossy metric.
Why should Americans, Canadians, or Europeans get visa free access to China, Brazil, or Vietnam when Chinese, Brazilian, and Vietnamese nationals need to get visas to visit America, Canada, or Europe?
Didn't realize Brazil has Schengen access! That's wild (in a good way)!
Out of curiosity, why don't we see the same degree of Brazilian immigration to the EU then versus the US?
Is it solely economic (ie. a Brazilian accountant is more likely to demand a salary significantly higher that that back in Brazil by moving to the US versus an EU state)?
> Out of curiosity, why don't we see the same degree of Brazilian immigration to the EU then versus the US?
There are a lot of Brazilians in the EU, most have legal residency through heritage (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian are quite common 2nd passports) or through work visas.
You can't discount the huge influence the USA has over Latin America, and specially over Brazil, people look up to the USA as a benchmark/role model, many Brazilians dream of "making it" by moving to the USA; Brazilians also suffer a huge influence from the consumerist aspect of the USA, they want to have nice cars (which are cheaper relative to salaries than in Brazil), they want to buy electronics that are expensive in Brazil: consoles, computers, phones, they want to buy clothing that is considered expensive in Brazil, there's a quite markedly status-chasing aspect of Brazilian society that mimics the American one. Brazil was somewhat molded according to the USA: car-dependent, consumerist, etc. so a lot of Brazilians believe that the USA is what Brazil "could be" if it was richer.
There are many support groups from past immigrants to help out settling in the USA, it's also much easier to live in the USA undocumented than in most of the EU: in the USA there's no centralised identification at the federal level, in the EU most countries require you to have a tax ID to do most of the basic bureaucracies you need to settle.
It's a confluence of factors that make Brazilian immigration into the USA very different than into the EU. From my experience most Brazilians in the EU are high-skilled immigrants or have a second citizenship or are spouses of natives/citizens.
For the full context, it looks like Henley & Partners is providing services like obtaining second citizenship, so it's in their best interest to highlight the US passport "decline". Further down they say "Americans Lead Global Rush for Second Citizenships", which just happens to be the thing they are selling.
When you say "science", you need to distinguish between science as philosophy vs. science as an institution. Science as philosophy is a way of thinking - an attempt to understand knowledge and reality. The science as an institution on the other hand has all the imperfections as any other institution, since the people in charge are driven by self interest and not just the search for the truth. So, when you say the people distrust science, it seems bizarre that they doubt science as philosophy, while in fact they doubt the institution. It's perfectly fine to mistrust the institution. If you want to consider a few failures, just in the recent years, I have some for you:
- Hungarian-born biochemist Katalin Karikó, who developed the key mRNA modification that enabled effective COVID-19 vaccines, was repeatedly denied grants and demoted during her career. She and her collaborator, Drew Weissman, struggled for years to gain recognition and funding for their work [1]
- On the other hand, the Wuhan Institute of Virology had no trouble getting grants from NIH [2]
- Surgeon General Jerome Adams was saying that masks are not effective against Covid [3]
- Social distancing was of supreme importance, until it turned out that it's fine not to distance if it's for a good cause [4]
> So, when you say the people distrust science, it seems bizarre that they doubt science as philosophy, while in fact they doubt the institution.
The vast, vast, vast majority of the Christian fundamentalists whom are the backbone of this movement and the subject of this discussion do not distinguish between these things. They do not distrust "big science," they distrust science, full stop. The fact that science as an institution is subject to the same corruptive forces as every other institution is a convenient post-hoc rationalization for the belief they already had and wanted to justify, just like a lot of other post-hoc rationalizations they have for other beliefs they have. They dislike science now because they are told to by their ministers, no more reason than that, and we know this because science and their religion coexisted peacefully and uneventfully for centuries until it become inconvenient for a segment of the church's politics. Excluding of course Gallileo, and for the same reasons.
Science (both as philosophy and institution) gets it wrong, but has built-in mechanisms that correct those issues. Eugenics was discredited by science. Andrew Wakefield's bullshit autism study was discredited by science. Religion gets it wrong and then calls it mystery.
It’s especially ironic to hear institutional corruption invoked as a critique of science, when many of the loudest voices in this conversation come from religious institutions that have spent decades shielding their own leadership from accountability for far more egregious abuses.
I am a bit of a checklist nerd, so I wrote a web app do to checklists: https://checkoff.ai
As it is fashionable these days, it can create checklists with AI ("Fun things to do in Pittsburg"), you can create checklists from templates (some stuff you do every day), etc.
I also have an MCP server that allows you to plug it into your favorite LLM.
Fun fact: you can visit his cave in Ward Pound Ridge Reservation, Westchester county. Interesting place. Not many people around. You can sit in the cave and try to imagine the life he lived.
