They were very much priced in, you had retailers purchasing a lot of imports in Q1 to prepare for them. What wasn’t priced in was the scale, which is what resulted in the initial sell off in April until the administration walked back the steepest rates
It would have been very hard to find a counterparty that didn’t think Donald Trump was going to raise tariffs prior to his inauguration. He was very transparent about this (though the exact amount has fluctuated pretty wildly). Hard to make money when nobody else is taking the other side of the bet.
>For a reason nobody understands, Germany is like an US satellite in everything it does
I don’t see what’s surprising about this. In the post-war period, most of Europe was hostile to German empowerment, from initial opposition to West Germany’s inclusion in NATO to later resistance to German reunification. The presence of tens of thousands of US troops in Germany also required more diplomatic communication and alignment to maintain status of forces agreements.
The status quo has only really changed in the last twenty years.
>do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended?
>Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.
When I say they're mostly good, but we should fix what's broken and people start hitting me with examples of broken regulation I can only interpret that as an example for why environmental regulation should be opposed by default. So I respond accordingly.
I've never said all environmental regulation is good. That would be stupid, but you should have evidence based reasons for wanting to repeal or modify a regulation.
Existing regulation was put in place for a reason and those reasons likely still matter. Even if the regulation is falling short of having unintended consequences.
How vital is it really to national security? Starlink will have competition from Amazon Leo in the next few months. And while SpaceX is obviously in the lead in launch capability with Starship, there are multiple launch providers capable of providing roughly the same services the Falcon 9 and Heavy provide today.
The same services as Falcon 9 are 20x the cost and launch 1/20th as much as well. That's like producing hand made good in America versus via a manufacturing line in China.
Those figures are not accurate. Other launch vehicles are currently 2-4x the cost (with comparable pricing coming online ex New Glenn), and SpaceX accounts for half of launch volume, not 20x other services. Reduce your claims by a factor of ten.
>My guess exercise is beneficial only to some level, after that it has a big toll on everything. Including IQ, mental and general health, and so on.
What reason do you have for thinking this? As far as I’ve read, there’s no indication that athletes perform worse than the population average on any of these metrics.
Athletes outperformed non-athletes on standardized tests in a 2014 study of Texas high schoolers.[1] Professional soccer players/footballers outperform the population average on a variety of cognitive assessments.[2] Sub-4 minute mile runners have better longevity and lower risk of cardiovascular disease than average.[3] With the exception of contact sports like American Football which involve serious risks of injury, I can’t think of any example of elite athletes that are worse off on quality of life metrics than average people.
>But it just begs the question, if you think that then go measure those things with your study.
Because randomized control, multi-year, longitudinal studies into behavioral interventions in human beings are incredibly annoying and expensive to run if you want to account for the risk of drop outs and/or non-compliance. They hosted twice weekly aerobic exercise classes for the experimental group (dozens of people) for a year! That’s not cheap by any means
This is a mouse model, so treatment toxicity as always remains a question mark in humans. Additionally, protein degraders like SD36 are very new, I don’t think any are FDA approved at this point, and figuring out e.g. dosing for human clinical trials will require more research on e.g. bioavailability, stability, etc. in humans.
The recipe of coke is not a copyright, it is a trade secret. Trade secrets can remain indefinitely if you can keep it secret. Copyrights are "open" by their nature.
I was agreeing it could last a very long time, even longer that copyright. But specifically because it is not copyright. But as an AI model, it just won't have value for very long. Models are dated within a 6 months and obsolete in 2 years. IP around development may last longer.
The recipe to Coca Cola is not copyrighted (recipes in general can't be) but is protected by trade secret laws, which can notionally last forever.
The recipe also isn't that much of a secret, they read it on the air on a This American Life episode and the Coca Cola spokesperson kind of shrugged it off because you'd have to clone an entire industrial process to turn that recipe into a recognizable Coke.
reply