27 got the slider so I though: finally I can turn it off even more. Turns out the max value of the slider is what toggling “less Liquid Glass please” was already doing in 26.
But at the same time they modified it and now it somehow looks eee worse? I don’t know whst they did but it’s just looking less readable, at least in dark mode.
And the worse thing about LG is the floating bottom nav bar that keeps shrinking to an icon when you least expect it, moving all elements.
Elon also advocated for that when he launched grok. The generous interpretation of this is that Elon cares about humanity, the more likely one is that desperately needed time to catch up with competitors (who were all ahead), so it would be great for him if everyone else paused.
The funny thing is that with $40T of public dept US is basically taking money from other countries (in exchange for a pice of paper saying IOU) and then using that money to force these countries to do what’s in US best interests (real or perceived).
And the bigger that pile of debt is the more every government is invested in us not going bankrupt, hence the leverage just gets stronger.
US is basically a private equity typo of global power - getting others to lend them a knife it stabs them in the back.
Wouldn’t that necessarily mean that if the US keeps making enemies of allies, then the premium required for these countries to give US money would be higher? Sure, I’ll lend you some, but I don’t trust you that much, you’ll have to pay me more.
I am not defending the US government but the reason why you hold treasuries is because if you want to buy something in two years, or ten years, etc. there is a good chance you will want to buy something with dollars. Oil, soy beans, New York real estate..
Until you can buy oil without dollars. This was an explicit agreement called the Petrodollar system, which was premised on the US navy securing international trade. If the US navy proves unable to do that (and exhausts its arms and demonstrates unpreparedness for future conflicts) then the whole premise falls apart.
You might also stop buying real estate if the government seems unstable and economy is poised to collapse. Good soybeans also depend on fuel prices and the continued flow of fertilizer...
To nitpick, much of that is probably due to halting refining for export and drawing down reserves. But of course the point stands that they are rapidly electrifying and expanding renewable generation.
Oil will only become more and more volatile. The supply chain is both complex and fragile to geopolitical nonsense. China is betting on stability and reliability, environmental concerns is just a bonus.
China has large coal reserves, enough for many decades.
"China, the world’s largest coal consumer, has domestic reserves of coal to last the next 50 years, according to annual reserves data from the Ministry of Natural Resources cited by Bloomberg.
At current rates of domestic production, China also has crude oil reserves that could last for at least 18 more years, according to the ministry"
Wow. Only enough reserves to be measured in decades? Once it's gone it's gone. Genuine Carboniferous coal, one day a thousand years from now, might be a rare museum item!
I have a habit of thinking about history in very long terms, and that just does not sit right with me. That kind of thinking (oh we have enough for decades, let it rip!) happens, and the decades pass, and time inevitably is less kind to the descendants of such decision makers.
Also, this means that if we let MBAs destroy this civilization, there won’t be any future advanced civilizations as we will have consumed all the easily usable resources they will need to jumpstart their technology tree from zero again. Even if the knowledge survives it could be useless
growing up (in the 70s/80s), the first time I was shocked at the exponential destructiveness of human civilisation was when I learnt that we had polluted the oceans. the second was when I found out that ubiquitous natural resources like oil could be completely consumed. I feel like either one would have been unthinkable even as late as 1900.
(incidentally the latest such shock was sometime this decade when I learnt that an aquifer could not only be depleted, but that that depletion would compact the soil so that it would thereafter be unable to hold water, and thus never (at least on our timescales) be able to be replenished. I think I'm still not over that!)
There is an interesting passage in Moby Dick where they talk about whether whaling could make whales go extinct, but the concern is brushed away as human hubris. How could humans completely destroy something that God created?
From the point of view of energy. The conversion of solar energy into coal is very inefficient, tree need energy to reproduce, only a part of plant is converted into coal, other organisms consuming plant matter, etc.
Until you find a more thrustworthy stewart of the international order. Everyone yells loudly about how bad the us is, but then you realize that the whole world voted with there feet that every other alternative is worse. The russians tried for years to write some replacement fiction into reality (BRICS) even though they would be the first to get shanked if the old great game returned. Its a absurd situation where empire cosplayers long for the times of "greatness" while struggling on even small "to real" acts ..
China's government is "very stable" until it's not. As a society, China has a long history but the central government has essentially collapsed or experienced violent revolution in 1976, 1969, 1949, 1927, 1911, 1850, 1796, 1644, etc. Perhaps we have reached "the end of history" and the Chinese Communist Party will now maintain stable control forever. Or maybe it will all fall apart again in a few decades due to resource shortages or factional power struggles or a foreign war.
That seems to be a recurring theme regardless of the country's economic system. We're two months away from seeing if the US still has a working succession strategy.
> Everyone yells loudly about how bad the us is, but then you realize that the whole world voted with there feet that every other alternative is worse.
The main problem right now is that the US are not the US for which we voted with our feet. They are a worse alternative to the US that created the status quo (to their advantage obviously, but much of the world also benefitted from free trade and the lack of other world wars).
In a way, the bond market tracks international central banks' confidence that this will continue to be true. If they lose some of that confidence, their stock of bonds moves from USD to RMB/EUR/JPY/AUD/CAD/SGD/etc.
True, except you're being way too easy on those other currencies. Currencies need to be issued by groups able to guarantee international trade, otherwise there's no point.
RMB - maybe, but nobody sane trusts China to not immediately change priorities on a dime
EUR - imho (much) less chance than RMB, but they're using a hack: of EUR is a massive entity and internally there's no choice. Literally not allowed (due to tax reasons) (exceptions of course made for favored entities) (I feel that those favored entities exist, and how big they are, should be a huge red flag for anyone considering using EUR)
JPY - can't project force ... and doesn't even try
AUD - no
CAD - no
SGD - no
I don't understand why you're not listing GBP, as they have at least at some point done this. Of course they were a worse steward of international trade than the worst point of the US. Also, you consider AUD, but not CHF?
So what choice is there, really? This is really a way to try to push the US to do more, for less "exorbitant privilege" (especially EUR). Of course, a great many people are very interested in doing just that. It strikes me as an extremely dangerous game to play. Yes, the odds of winning are good, but if you lose, you lose everything.
I was going by foreign currency reserves, which feature CAD and AUD in much greater quantities than CHF. Also I swapped in SGD for GBP, whoops.
Global reserves continue to hold USD in greater quantities than anything else. A movement away from the USD still means a relative loss of faith in the US. If there's nobody who can guarantee trade then you still need to hold reserves, right? You just have to hold a broad and shallow pool rather than going deep on one currency.
Pretty confident it’s going to be EUR, note how they dealt with Trump tariff’s shenanigans. Took it slowly, and decidedly, sure let the countries say words and what not, but at the end of the day it’s decided by the EU. Just one persons opinion.
And you're not terrified that's the situation? The beef the US has with the EUR is simple: the US is what's defending Europe militarily (nuclear and non-nuclear. The Pentagon is the reason Ukraine hasn't been nuked yet, or more likely, that Kiyv didn't surrender because they didn't have nukes). That was never given freely. It was politically impossible to get governments to actually pay for that, so it was decided to trade in USD (this was before petrodollar), giving the US "exorbitant privilege" (which roughly translates to that the US gets to tax most of global trade at something like 2 to 4% and use that for themselves). That the US got that was not an accident, but a policy decision. The Euro takes that away, but of course, no European country is willing to either now start paying, or to defend itself. To say nothing of France, the Netherlands or Denmark defending remote EU territories like Greenland, ABC islands or Polynesia (which would require, for starters, militarily controlling supply lines to those territories).
Given the history of economic sanctions (what the EU is doing) ... of course people don't know that history, but the TLDR is that nearly always economic sanctions are a prelude to war. They don't just not work. In many cases they cause wars. WW1 was caused by economic sanctions (and the scale of EU economic sanctions is 100x bigger than what caused WW1), and often the economic sanctions on Germany after WW1 are generally thought to be the big reason for WW2. It makes sense from a game theory perspective: if a government, whose power is fundamentally based on force, lets economic sanctions convince them, they will be attacked by their own people. So they simply cannot give in, and historically that's what you indeed mostly see: when a country is targeted by economic sanctions, it's government usually decides to attack.
The EUR is imposing very large scale sanctions on ... essentially everyone. Russia and China most obviously of course, but sanctions are so widely used by the EU you can literally say it's being used against everyone from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, or geographically from Paraguay to North Korea. And why is the EU doing this? Exactly the reason Trump is doing it: sanctions are "power without needing parliament to approve the budget for anything".
The fear is: the historically most likely outcome of what the EU is doing, what EUR is being used for, is another very large scale war.
> Go further with your reasoning... Why would anyone lend the US more...
Because if you don't, you are abducted or killed or "regime changed" or sanctioned to famine-level poverty - all for "freedom & democracy". Kindly remember that the Corporate States of America has the world's most powerful military... well I suppose it is nowadays in the top #3.
The real answer to your question is the US bond market is an auction, and rates are going up and up, with some sketchy tactics being employed to try and keep them down.
What’s happening to US bonds has been compared to using a credit card to pay off your mortgage...
its mostly because the global economy is dollarized so there's a number of benefits store your wealth in dollars as a hedge or point of stability.
If the dollar's dominance wanes, so too will be the appetite for US treasuries.
US capital markets are the largest and most liquid in the world. It's not even close.
There are of course a zillion other borrowers worldwide but they're all much smaller and suffer from a variety of other structural problems. If you need to deploy a huge amount of capital with low risk and high liquidity then US treasuries are still the only realistic option.
Sure, but that premium would still be in dollars; until the world realizes that the US is using the primacy of the dollar as a reason to do whatever they want...
What you point out here is a major weakness in the typical US citizen's understanding of where US wealth and power comes from.
The US prints two kinds of dollars, the regular kind, then the T-bills.
T-bills get exchanged like dollars, investors/governments buy them because they are thought to be as stable as dollars, but also bear a bit of yield. The US benefits by printing T-bills over dollars because merely by changing the current interest rate, they change the dollar supply. Increasing interest rates lower the value of T-bills, decreasing the supply of dollars (as Silicon Valkey Bank found out...). This allows the US currency to remain very stable.
Referring to the $40T of T-bills merely as "debt" is quite deceptive. It's the global currency. You need enough currency out there to represent the actual amount of wealth, otherwise the values of dollars increases, and deflation is the only thing worse than inflation.
The US' $2T budget deficit is basically the rest of the world paying the US for the privilege of using US currency. The US is printing money, and getting the benefits of spending, because the rest of the world needs dollars to transact. They send us goods, we send them printed dollars. And then we get a president who calls this situation bad, because he doesn't understand what a "trade deficit" is. Utter insanity to have such a position and then just throw it all away.
>deflation is the only thing worse than inflation.
In any empirical sense this is absolutely false. The only instance of a significant negative instance of deflation was its contribution to the Great Depression in the early nineteen hundreds, and the effect of that was minor compared to the effects of extreme inflation (hyperinflation) that occurred in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Deflation is inherently self-limiting because people have a baseline of goods they must consume for survival (housing, food etc.), and once that baseline is reached spending does not fall further; there's not a single instance in history of 99% deflation, while 99%, 999% and even 999999999% inflation has happened within even just the past few decades.
> people have a baseline of goods they must consume for survival (housing, food etc.), and once that baseline is reached spending does not fall further
Oh boy, do I have news for you. It is in fact possible to run out of money, and in a deflating economy with no jobs you can't just go out and earn more. It puts peoples' collective backs against the wall -- at which point they decide to fight like cornered animals rather than die in a corner, and things get nasty.
Inflation crises are awful, but when you run out of money there are jobs and you can get more and this generally prevents them from turning into bloodbaths. This is why we collectively decided to err in this direction.
Weimar Germany is the perfect example. Did it suck? Yeah. Savings were incinerated, everyday activities became market speculation, the memes are all true -- but it happened under nearly full employment and once the root causes were addressed everything largely simmered down. This is in stark contrast to the deflationary shock of the Great Depression later that decade which propelled the Nazis into power and led directly to WWII.
99% deflation doesn't happen because people start killing each other long before then.
> the Great Depression in the early nineteen hundreds, and the effect of that was minor compared to the effects of extreme inflation (hyperinflation) that occurred in places like Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe.
Millions unemployed, dependent on soup lines for survival, and their families living in makeshift shanty towns, is "minor"? Children were sold to provide subsistence. Generational wealth, from industries to family farms, were erased.
Vance is making this idea popular/mainstream again lately, I wonder why? The US will predictably lose reserve-currency status as a consequence of losing all the rest of the trust and good will available to her, so it's time to make it seem like that was the plan all along.
Sure, there was a serious conversation to be had about this at some point, but it was probably before stacking up tons of unsustainable debt that directly depends on that part of the shell game. And there are many things that can/should change, but in a certain way and at a certain time to avoid pain and chaos. Arguing "this was always bad for us, fuck it" is kind of a pattern now, right? When someone wants to change some things, great, everything sucks. But when someone wants to tear down every status quo, and especially the ones that they apparently benefited from while saying "everyone after me doesn't need it", then it's a pretty clear sign.
US is now a lot of crazy old people finding new ways to eat their children and trying to see the world burn before they check out. They created the bulk of the debt, benefited from it immensely, propped it up with collateral that was always kind of imaginary, continue to increase the debt. Not great, but now we are also proposing to just destroy what's left of that thin collateral? I don't know how to explain that with greed or stupidity even, it just seems like spite.
> US is now a lot of crazy old people finding new ways to eat their children and trying to see the world burn before they check out. They created the bulk of the debt, benefited from it immensely, propped it up with collateral that was always kind of imaginary, continue to increase the debt. Not great, but now we are also proposing to just destroy what's left of that thin collateral? I don't know how to explain that with greed or stupidity even, it just seems like spite.
And is your proposal to just hope to be one of the next generation who still can eat their children? Or better yet, the children of those who didn't make it before the ladder was pulled up?
Nothing there explains why it's a bad deal for the middle class.
The middle class actually benefits the most from this situation! More goods, more government services, etc. How much more? Just add up all the trade deficits, that's all benefit accrued almost entirely to the middle class.
It is explained in the Alden piece, section "The Fraying of the Petrodollar System", subsection "The Triffin Dilemma Unfolds".
What I meant was "blue collar working class" as opposed to the neo-artistocrat professional class. The Triffin Dilemma is a contributor to the K shaped economy and rise of populism.
>And from there, the value of the system depends on who you ask. Folks who are often on the higher end of the income spectrum who worked in finance, government, healthcare, or technology benefitted from this system, since they obtained many of the benefits of globalization and none of the drawbacks. Folks who are often on the lower end of the income spectrum, specifically those that make physical things, are the ones that benefitted least and gave the most up, since their jobs were outsourced and automated at a faster rate than other developed countries. But now with China also undermining the structure of the system, even the geopolitical/hegemonic benefits for the political class are subverted as well.
I guess I'm not seeing anything tying the trade deficit to the destruction of unions, to the massive reduction in top tax rates resulting in higher CEO compensation, etc.
The piece puts increasing trade deficits next to lots of stuff about increasing inequality, but it does not make the case that trade deficits are the cause of increasing inequality.
There's a person that had a job making physical things, but they are not inherently a "person that only makes physical things." The idea that bringing back the making of physical things will make these people wealthier is, well, suspicious. Unions? Better taxations systems? Modernizing manufacturing so that each worker is far more productive and we can compete with the world? That may help. But reducing trade deficits will not fix any of the K shaped economy.
A current account deficit is a capital account surplus.
We can pay for imports with things we make or things we own. To a first approximation, making things employs people and owning things does not. If we pay with things we make, our economy employs people. If we pay with things we own, the jobs disappear while stocks/bonds/real estate soar.
If you want the whole story from an actual economist, read "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Klein and Pettis.
You're missing the third thing we pay with: T-bills. We literally print money. That's it. We didn't give up anything we own. We didn't give up anything we made. We printed money, because there needs to be enough currency to represent the ever growing wealth of the world and the world has chosen the US dollar as the reserve currency, to the great benefit of the US.
You're missing that the T-bills are replacing exports (including services) that would otherwise have had to happen to support the imports, and that the latter employs people while the former doesn't.
The benefit is to the US in aggregate but is a detriment to most US citizens, since most US citizens get their money primarily from working rather than from owning assets. But for the minority of people who mostly get their money from owning assets, this is brilliant, I agree.
> Modernizing manufacturing so that each worker is far more productive and we can compete with the world
How does this not correspond directly to reduced trade deficits? In this scenario the US is either sourcing more of what it needs internally, and thereby importing less, or it is more competitive globally and therefore exporting more, or both.
That would be a necessary condition for manufacturing-based reduction of inequality.
But manufacturing is not a way to decrease inequality unless there's massive massive other sorts of changes going with it.
In fact destroying the higher paying jobs to replace them with lower paying jobs in the US will heighten the inequality. And that's what's happening right now.
It certainly can't be leading to more government services. We get less every year. There might be more spending, but there's fewer results. We can't build trains, our police don't stop crime, healthcare covers less and costs more every year.
So which do you choose? Yuan carries Chinese geopolitical risk, Yen, probably not enough of it in the world plus Japan keeps trying to devalue, Euro maybe, but there's plenty of geopolitical risk there with Russia on the doorstep and shifting politics...
Plus if everyone doesn't choose the same it's less convenient.
You make sound like we're stuck with it, but the franc and the sterling pound used to have a similar role for a few centuries each... these things change.
Didn't say we're stuck with it, just at this exact moment there's no obvious replacement.
If China ever replaces Xi and the next generation takes a softer stance on a bunch of stuff it'll be a shoe in, but right now they're weirdly belligerent.
They're quite softer in all kinds of stuff. The US is run by an aggressive madman and neocon/MIC combo in comparison (tarrifs, trade blackmail, Greenland, straight of Hormuz, the list goes on).
Russia is going to have a very hard time directly attacking the Eurozone without also hitting NATO home soil - which through Article 5 would also pull in plenty of non-Euro countries, including the United States. Besides, shoveling never-ending piles of cash into the furnace of the War Machine doesn't seem to have hurt the dollar?
As to shifting politics: The EU is famously extremely hard to move.
The European Council decides the political direction and consists of the heads of state of the member countries; the European Commission is the executive cabinet and needs buy-in from the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament; the Council of the European Union is made up from ministers of the member states and each member state has a veto right on all foreign policy proposed by the European Commission; the European Parliament's members are directly elected through independent elections in the individual member states with proportional representation, and any policy proposed by the European Commission also needs a majority here; the Court of Justice of the European Union's General Court oversees this and is composed of two judges appointed by each member state for a renewable six-year period and reviewed by an independent committee.
In other words: nothing gets done fast, and nothing gets done without buy-in from a lot of people with very opposed political goals. Quite different from a country like, say, the United States, where the loser of the popular vote routinely becomes president, is handed God-Emperor levels of power, and is virtually impossible to unseat - leaving the foreign policies of a nuclear superpower to be decided by how a single person felt when he stepped out of his bed this morning.
> Russia is going to have a very hard time directly attacking the Eurozone without also hitting NATO home soil - which through Article 5 would also pull in plenty of non-Euro countries, including the United States
Will it? The Russians blew up an ammunition depot in Czechia without consequences. A cruise missile hit Poland and it was swept under the rug. Numerous acts of sabotage and Europe's done nothing. Now a drone attack in Germany and they're again, responding extremely weakly.
The only rational takeaway is that NATO is weak. If Russia attacks Latvia will the US go to war? Not s chance.
> Russia is going to have a very hard time directly attacking the Eurozone without also hitting NATO home soil - which through Article 5 would also pull in plenty of non-Euro countries, including the United States.
That's the plan, but under Glorious Leader? Not clear which side he would attack (or possibly neither).
The US isn’t taking money from other countries - you clearly don’t understand the scam!
We give money to Israel, Ukraine, and everyone else - we print and print and print and a few people close to the action take some off the top.
That’s it. Maybe some rich kids get their university debt wiped clean (not community college though).
The US and even local governments within have become corrupted to the core - they are like ATMs and havens of various types for the emerging international wealth class.
That class may very well want to promote your idea since the best seat at the table right now is China.
Now everyone wants to be owed by the US à la China, it’s been great for international business. Mexico is the heir to that throne more than Europe - which doesn’t produce anything the world wants.
Saying sorry means admitting guilt.
If there’s guilt there some level of harm.
If there’s harm you can be sued.
Avoiding being sued due to causing harm usually means increased costs, because you now need to take care you didn’t take before.
Higher cost means you’re less competitive.
Being less competitive makes you less attractive investment target.
So as always it’s all about money.
Saying sorry == lower share price.
I find it particularly bad at writing test comments, I usually start fixing bugs by adding regression tests and Opus tend to put story into comments for these, including “but it fails because…” followed by bug description including line numbers and call chains. It just lives to narrate everything
Discovered a new legit CVE today during a meeting with some other engineers. I’m going to make sure the one who originally brought it up gets to put it on his résumé. The world needs more people like that.
And the worse thing about LG is the floating bottom nav bar that keeps shrinking to an icon when you least expect it, moving all elements.
reply