You could say "I used AI to cure cancer." This isn't a counter example, because there's no evidence for it.

If you want to be a part of my community, you need to obviously be giving at least as much as you take. And none of this can be theoretical in terms of what you're offering. Theoretical == non-existent.

That's a pretty far cry from the "evidence" you claim to have dropped on multiple comments.

My follow-up question is "What percentage of the 'totally independent' group, are parents with adult children?"

i.e. there's almost an interesting statistic here about what percentage of adults have "no option" in relying on their parents for financial help, and what percentage of the remainder still do rely on their parents.

But once I had this question, I realized that I needed to be suspicious of the % itself.

If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.

Is that an image of you?

It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).

You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.

Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."

"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."

I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.

Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.

The giveaway was my Medical Professional father thinking that AI was really good at things outside of his area of expertise, and really bad at things inside of his area of expertise.

There's nothing special about the number $1T.

Given that they've had to change the rules of index funds to allow for this, yes, this is not what people expect.

Typically I just have my 401k in an index fund so that things have to become established before they're added. This seems like it's circumventing that, and I would be inclined to vote with my wallet. But everything around 401k index funds that I see are very opaque, so it's not totally clear to me how I would avoid this if I wanted to.

Everyone I know who invests in an index fund is doing so to mitigate the risks of things like "moonshots" which are typically much riskier investments.

Like, if it takes you 3-5 seconds to get through a captcha as a human, as long as every single event has that effort added, the impact to something trying to use/reuse the end-page is way worse if you're a robot than if you're a human.

I can see a few usecases where it would still be valuable to continue the game of cat-and-mouse, but I feel like solving for consistency of human experience of your website, may actually be more punishing to anything trying to bypass it.