Then why did Modigliani and Fisher say in their 1978 paper "Towards an understanding of the real costs of inflation": "The traditional view that because money is neutral, inflation produces no appreciable real effects is shown to hold approximately only for an economy whose institutions are fully inflation proof, e.g. a fully indexed one.", and why can't we fully index the economy?

Why did Israel use full indexation for decades while increasing their standard of living? What if the decision in the 1980s to use price controls instead of indexation was an arbitrary mood; why couldn't they have kept indexation going forever (they still use it today in fact)?

If your income goes up immediately with prices, why would you care about nominal inflation, because even if gas went to $10/gallon your income increase would allow you to buy the same amount you always did without losing any money?

Since the US currency has lost some 90+% of its value since the country's founding, yet the US is the world's premier superpower, hasn't indexation been used implicitly to keep real purchasing power rising even as nominal inflation has risen?

Do you just have a mood affiliation against indexation and no sound argument?

Does this tech eliminate the key objection to printing basic income money faster than prices rise, that "menu costs" become negligible?

If you get a printed basic income and stores raise prices costlessly and your income goes up in lockstep, why can't you forget about nominal inflation and convert nominal prices to units of real purchasing power, which won't change under an indexation scheme, no matter how fast nominal prices may rise?

Did Norris kill himself?

"Google reduced our headline "I used the 'cheat on everything' AI tool and it didn't help me cheat on anything" to just five words: "'Cheat on everything' AI tool." It almost sounds like we're endorsing a product we do not recommend at all."

Does the dude feel cheated by AI?

Is physics just hubris, thinking you can explain things that are actually stranger than you are capable of imagining?

Was I the only one who stopped using ChatGPT when it stopped flattering me because some fuddyduddies thought that was dangerous?

"that google paper's "breakthrough" wasn't so much the tech (neural nets) but the precise adaptation of it that made it highly parallelizable."

Do you reallly need neural nets to get attention weights?

Why shouldn't the Fed print money to stave off a balance sheet recession?

What if Greenspan deliberately popped dotcom because he was old, grumpy, and deathly afraid of irrational exuberance, but Trump is stopping the Fed from making the same mistake again?

Do you kick pregnant dogs, like DesCartes, because they're just automatons?

"Everyone will wait for someone more palatable to come along and inform them as someone with credibility."

Did you just say the messenger is more important than the message and ad hominem is the best way of finding truth?

"The problem reached a visible breaking point in April 2025 when OpenAI had to roll back a GPT-4o update after users reported the model had become so excessively flattering it was unusable. Research on multi-turn conversations has found that extended interactions amplify sycophantic behavior further -- the longer a user talks to a model, the more it mirrors their perspective"

Is this a feature not a bug? What's wrong with individuals living in a customized virtual bubble, wasting all their time there so they do less harm in the real world? Does the very thought of someone being a freethinker make you so butthurt you define nonviolent dissent as violence?

Did they take them away to sell more Sirius XM subscriptions?

Why not use data from more users to improve the product and drive up stock price which is where their real revenue comes from?

"suck me into a pointless debate"

Is there anything not pointless?