I live in Texas, which is probably very similar to where you’re thinking of, and I could list off at least 10 different places within a 1 hour radius that should be visited.
I grew up in Michigan farm country and have lived in the desert SW and Pacific NW as an adult.
The outdoor attractions out west are world class compared to the attractions closer to where I grew up. Still, there are plenty of places I enjoy when I get back to Michigan to see family and friends. Even the Plains states have some great outdoorsy places, you might have to work a little harder to find them.
Here’s something else you can try: take off your phone case. My phone screen is scratched to hell and I think it runs slower from dropping it without a case so many times.
Someone should run a randomized trial with screen time against phone case usage. I wonder what would show up. Imagine the human connection and true critical thinking that would happen with just a 1% decrease in screen time!
This makes me think that doing cool reboots of old cars but with EV powertrains would be awesome. Think of an old VW Golf from the 90s with an EV powertrain. Or an old 60s mustang.
Money that people “dump” into the S&P isn’t going to the company’s bank account. It’s purchasing shares on the market that were owned by other third party shareholders.
For example, in 2025 Meta was a net purchaser of their own stock ($26 Bn).
These companies are awash in cash because they’re generating revenue in excess of their costs. Nothing to do with the amount of money people put into the S&P 500.
Secondarily, this is exactly why I agree that LLMs likely won’t have the impact OP believes it will. Companies hire not just for output, but for
1. Training (future management, future architects, future bankers, future developers)
2. Generally adding smart people to their teams, capturing a cornered resource
3. Showing governments and shareholders that they have created “jobs”
And a plethora of other reasons that I can’t think of.
John D. Rockefeller (pioneer of the modern corporation) is quoted as saying: “Nobody does anything if he can get anybody else to do it. As soon as you can, get someone who you can rely on, train him in the work, sit down, cock up your heels and think out some way for the Standard Oil to make some money.”
Buying back shares it sold at a lower price, right? The lifecycle of a share starts with the transfer of money to a company in exchange for a share. It ends with a buy back, ideally at a higher price.
But still, at the beginning it is a transfer into the company’s coffers.
I’m not sure what the justification is, but I assume it’s some flavor of “so index fund holders don’t miss out on returns”.
It’s crooked because index inclusion drives massive flows at any price. SpaceX understands this and with so much money on the table probably exerted influence (maybe the big AI players contributed too).
Passive funds don’t care about price (quite the opposite, they reward higher market caps in a feedback loop).
But with an IPO, you’re supposed to let the market have some time to find the right price.
Not to mention the changes related to profitability rules etc.
Agree with this sentiment. However, I think the S&P 500 fudged the rule to 6 months which I believe adequately straddles the line between 1. provides time for price discovery and 2. includes a large piece of the market that would otherwise be included if not for the seasoning cutoff.
Agree with you entirely with respect to other indexes including earlier than 6 months.
The last time meta sold stock on the market was a primary stock offering in December 2013, roughly a year and a half after its initial public offering (IPO).
I find it crazy that so many people misunderstand this basic fact about how the market works.
100% correct, but I'll add that companies do use shares in other ways which also matter.
For example shares can be used for buying labor. Either as options or as grants, bonuses etc. It ultimately winds up in the public shares pool, but the first recipient receives it in place if company cash.
The second major use is in acquisitions. Buying other businesses using stock instead of cash is a useful tool often wielded. Again, not released onto the open market, but winds up there eventually.
Plus you can use them as loan collateral, balance-sheet improves and so on. So their price matters and their value to the business extends far beyond the IPO.
“belong” is a flexible word. You’re right in theory but depending on the situation money in your bank account is worth more to you than an equivalent amount of money in a company’s bank account (of which you are a shareholder).
Somewhere in one of the long videos, they mentioned that there were unique stickers on each of his items that he was selling on consignment. They had to have known which items were his.
I almost feel like this topic deserves a further deep dive. This seems like a more profound difference of cultures: Japan, where failure is stigmatized and less of an option, optimizes for survival, and the United States, where failure is common, optimizes for growth(? wealth? fame?).
The pattern might also hold at a broader level. The United States is a relatively young nation that has seen plenty of internal strife (plenty of civil wars including The Civil War) whereas Japan has existed in some form for 2,600 years.
Probably too deep to consider, but the thought hit me that trees and plants (like these J-firms) grow multiple branches as quickly as they can because they are optimizing for survival.
There has been some internal stife in Japan, such as the Taira and Minamoto clans having a bit of a falling out, or that time when the Tokugawa somehow ended up on top, or tussles over the Meiji restoration. And also the "opening up undeveloped land" thing that was maybe not so benficial to the Ainu, and others.
How are you defining civil wars such that America has had "plenty" of them? Could you list a few?
What blew me away was the proliferation of the Church of the East. I never knew Christianity had that much of a foothold in Asia. I wonder if geographically it appears more significant due to that region’s sparse population?
Also because the region was conquered by Muslims so it did not last. It was the majority religion of the Asian parts of the Byzantine Empire.
North Africa played a very important part in the development of Christianity. Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome and Origen were North Africans. Monasticism evolved in Egypt.
If you come from a American Christian background these are really worth exploring. Being ex-catholic/ex-Christian I found that they share enough to make them more accessible (I guess) than other religions, but also different in thought from what I grew up in, and those combined really help me expand on my personal thinking. I did a study group that a Greek orthodox priest put on for non-orthodox and it was awesome. Watching him shutdown old school American Christians and their focus on decoding a few sentences in English when he pointed out 'that's not even really what the words mean in the original text' and then getting mini-lessons on old languages and meanings I felt like I was back in school and completely changed a lot of my surface level understand of Christianity (asking my family religious questions the answer was don't questions/it's this because it's this).
From the comments here I think I'm going to look into the Indian off shoots. Up until now I've mainly explored through Egyptian, Syrian, and Greek/Russian orthodox friends. I wonder if there is an Indian style church established in the US that would have literature created to be accessible to an American church centric point of view? I've always envied the deep spirituality my Indian Christian/Muslim friends have had, I wonder if exploring the Indian church could help me with that. I did a couple year long study with a Pakistani Muslim friend but I didn't really connect with it, though his beautiful spirituality/groundedness/family beleifs have been a godsend as a life mentor.
For indian you can check the st thomas christians or syrian christians or malankara nasranis from state of kerala that trace their origin to st thomas visit in the 1st century and were under the church of east. They follow the syriac based liturgies. I mentioned to specifically check with these because other christians in india are all latin rite catholic or protestant, which all started with european arrivals and so most won't be much aware of the histories outside their group. And checking with any hindu or muslim from india won't do any good because first they are not even much aware of all these different denominations, and most outside kerala won't be aware of all these since this community is historically concentrated in that specific region of the country; now the second reason is the nation is now in hinduthva peak where there is a lot of conflict from majority hindus with muslims and christians and the ideology itself say muslims and christians are internal threats and they all just dismiss everything about christianity as fake and try to always associate christianity with euorpean colonisation and hence anti national cheaters.
Now the migrants of st thomas christians or syrian christians or malankara nasranis community from the state of kerala are present in western nations, including america and have churches there. Currently, the community is split into the following different denominations:
* Syro malabar catholic church - follows a modified east syriac litrugy
* Malankara orthodox syrian/malankara jacobite syrian church - follows west syriac litrugy
* Syro malankara catholic church - follows a slightly modified west syriac litrugy
* Marthoma syrian church - follows a protestantified west syriac
Way back when I heard someone state that the reason Christianity spread so wildly was because it was foundational to proselytize and convert non-Christians to the faith. That makes complete sense to me.
It's not like it was this passive meme that spread because people who encountered it loved it so much they wanted to join.
Hinduism is hardly non-proselytising. After all there's not a lot of Buddhists left in India. The Brahmin caste pretty intentionally and comprehensively reacted to and pushed out Buddhist practices once they became threatened by them.
That is one important aspect, but there are several to my mind
- Life in the bronze age was very rough, and quality of life in cities was basically inhumane. Women were highly represented among earliest converts, as Christianity comparatively was rather progressive and demanded baseline respect for them. Also, pagan religions of the time, despite cultural significance, didn't promise much of a payoff for plebeians for all their toil. Conversion was easy after Paul pushed the case that they shouldn't have to convert to Judaism, with all that would entail.
- Especially in the early days, this was very much a pacifist religion, in addition to having an apocalyptic fixation. To Rome, "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's" is a handy sentiment for the populace to have. They fought and won several uprisings just from the Jews who wanted their independence (and expected their forthcoming Savior would literally help deliver this), and the vast empire was beginning it's slow decline. Killing Christians and making martyrs out of them didn't make much sense in the long-run.
- There is a magic sauce in universalizing, it extends the shared culture within territories and makes it easier to convince people to wage war for you. Prior, the motivators were mainly tribal/blood connections, and money.
The Jews for their part were content with what they had, Christianity didn't provide much value-added, especially for the "zealots" who were ready to die for freedom. The "Love-thy-neighbor" sentiment is sort of similar to parts of Leviticus, but the cranked up pacifism and relaxed outlook over some rules was a departure. I think the "afterlife" bit was a lot more persuasive for gentiles. Then of course the rituals and conception in the collective consciousness evolved over time, from influences like Augustine and others.
By the time there was a true Christendom, powers that be dropped the (absolute) significance of pacifism, as that was no longer as useful as it was.
The reason Christianity spread so wildly is that Emperor Constantine found it more politically useful for Christians to die in his military than the lions den, so he put the military might of the Roman empire behind it. If not for Rome and the imperial powers that followed, Christianity would probably have died out like all of the other weird Jewish apocalypse cults of the day. We might all rather be Mithrainists or something.
No, it's because your education is western-centric and Islamic invasions took over the east. Eastern Christians have been subjected to genocide at the hands of Muslims for 1300 years.
Edit - really, someone is asking for a citation that the Islamic conquests happened? Next should ask for a citation that the sky is blue...
This is basic world history, like the discovery of the new world, Alexander the Great's conquests or the Roman empire...
How can “genocide” apply to a voluntary religious group? And even if it could, the linked wikipedia article doesn’t seem to support your claim, either. Do you have anything else we could review?
If you read about Islamic conquests, you would see that in the vast overwhelming cases, no such events took place, if ever. Demographics changed because people entered Islam. Islam is against genocide.
Not at all. I'm asking you to refrain from religious flamewar (or any flamewar) on HN, and to stick to the rules when commenting.
If you expect moderators to adjudicate complex questions of religious scholarship, we can't: we're unqualified, and it's not our job. We prefer to stick to things that (a) are our job, which (b) we're qualified for. Those tasks are altogether more mundane, such as telling HN users they're not allowed to put down entire religions or each other.
Ok, so an edit to the parent post cites my comment as an incorrect citation needed as if it's incorrect.
Another statement also claims that genocide was performed because it also includes religious groups.
None of that is wrong.
What is wrong is claiming that they actually performed genocide. They overtook, yes. Did not perform genocide. Even the cited article says, that "christian communities were dissatisfied with the change". If there was genocide, who was left to be dissatisfied?
while tribal hunters simply killed for access to the best hunting grounds? Mongols killed why? IMO you can reconstruct this line of thought easily -- humans killed other humans brutally and without fail; some humans interpreted the world in divine terms and guarded fertility; Religion combines many strands with intention, while the killing for other reasons does not cease.
No true Scotsman fallacy. Just because a cook does something multiple times a day doesn’t mean he or she can’t find pleasure in making each meal as high quality as possible.
I think my Grandpa worked on the mentioned classified experiments in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. He was a Naval Academy graduate with a degree in electrical engineering and spent several years on submarines. He then spent several years working at the Pentagon in late 50s and throughout the 60s (my mother was born in Bethesda in 72).
He took those secrets to his grave. I could never get it out of him what he did that was classified. Although I did find several books and research papers in his basement about sonar and radio communications…
Anyways, great article that gave me a bit more insight into what my Grandpa might have been up to.
reply