All time high if denominated in USD. YoY, stocks have been increasing in value as fast as USD is losing to CHF. Regardless of whether gold and silver jumps are a pump and dump, stocks, in "real" value, are at most flat.
Well it's an all time high in EUR as well for instance. I haven't checked for CHF or other currency one may cherry-pick, but in any case it wouldn't change my point: even if it was slightly below an all time high, it's not currently crashing.
I'm not the one who made the "it's crashing now" claim and I do agree that from a certain point of view, it might be seen as a stretch.
However, what I'm claiming is that "all time high" is also quite a stretch. Pretty much all nations have been printing money pretty intensely, so fiat is not a solid anchor to derive "actual value", but CHF might be among those that are less printed, so I chose it.
Even if we chose EUR, EURUSD wins YoY over S&P 500, hence, "stocks are flat". Sure, in the case of EUR, optics are fuzzier and you might pick a point or index showing a small increase over EURUSD, but I don't think it's strong enough to beat the general point, especially if your counter point is "stocks are at an all time high".
It being an all time high was just to highlight how much "not-crashing" they are, but that doesn't really matter. Even if stocks were merely flat over the past year (or even somewhat down), the general point would still be the lack of a stock market crash.
It’s funny when people just determine that a crash only happens when the stock market crashes. Things were crashing in the housing market before the stock market crashed in 2008. Do your homework.
> Statistically more danger than a free solo climber.
While I don't have statistics on free solo death rate per climb compared to death per car trip, this is most likely very, very wrong. You should really stop throwing such strange wild claims..
This is in contradiction to the experience of driving, where any number of people on the road with you are untrained, undertrained, drunk, or suffering diseases that affect their ability to drive. Or just doing crimes like speeding or dangerous driving. So when climbing, your fate is entirely in your hands and that of nature's. When driving, it's in the hands of many strangers.
You did not adress the point though. This isn't about the tens of thousands of people climbing, it's about the ones climbing free-solo, which is a much, much smaller number.
>>> You put your life in danger every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Statistically more danger than a free solo climber.
>> While I don't have statistics on free solo death rate per climb compared to death per car trip, this is most likely very, very wrong. You should really stop throwing such strange wild claims..
> Of all the thousands of times tens of thousands people climb, only 30 die per year. Of that 30, 30% are free solo deaths.
So? I would think few people die from free soloing at height not because it’s relatively safe, but because very few people do it.
>Somehow Europeans care more about Greenland than Ukraine, so maybe this is the final straw.
"Somehow" makes it sound like a strange situation, but it seems quite normal that the EU would care more about its own citizens than a foreign land, even if it is a close neighbor.
I'm sure the Greenland Inuit people are very nice, I'd love to visit their country one day, and they don't deserve to be Trump's ego booster.
My immediate instinct is that the average European has far more to do with an average Ukrainian than the average Greenlander. But that might not be right. I'm just surprised at the psychology here. I'm glad Europeans are veery slowly standing up to the new reality, be it through Greenland or Ukraine or anywhere else.
What antitrust rule do you think would be breached?
I admit I don't see the issue here. Companies are free to select their service providers, and free to dominate a market (as long as they don't abuse such dominant position).
Gatekeeping - nobody else can be the default voice assistant or power Siri, so where does this leave eg OpenAI? The reason this is important is their DOJ antitrust case, about to start trial, has made this kind of conduct a cornerstone of their allegations that Apple is a monopoly.
It also lends credence to the DOJ's allegation that Apple is insulated from competition - the result of failing to produce their own winning AI service is an exclusive deal to use Google while all competing services are disadvantaged, which is probably not the outcome a healthy and competitive playing field would produce.
So because Apple chose not to spend money to develop it's own AI, it must be punished for then choosing to use another companies model? And the reason that this is an issue is because both companies are large?
This feels a little squishy... At what size of each company does this stop being an antitrust issue? It always just feels like a vibe check, people cite market cap or marketshare numbers but there's no hard criteria (at least that I've seen) that actually defines it (legally, not just someones opinion).
The result of that is that it's sort of just up to whoever happens to be in charge of the governing body overseeing the case, and that's just a bad system for anyone (or any company) to be subjected to. It's bad when actual monopolistic abuse is happening and the governing body decides to let it slide, and it's bad when the governing body has a vendetta or directive to just hinder certain companies/industries regardless of actual monopolistic abuse.
> So because Apple chose not to spend money to develop it's own AI, it must be punished for then choosing to use another companies model? And the reason that this is an issue is because both companies are large?
No they were already being sued for antitrust violations, it just mirrors what they are accused of doing to exploit their platform.
So if it mirrors something they were already accused of (like you're saying), my questioning should be pretty easy to map onto that issue as well?
It's the line of thinking that I'm trying to dig into more, not the specifics of this case. Now it feels like you're saying "this is anti-trust because someone accused them of anti-trust before".
If that case was prosecuted and Apple was found guilty, I suppose you can point to it as precedent. But again, does it only serve as precedent when it's a deal between Apple and Google? Is it only a precedent when there's a case between two "large" companies?
Again this is all really squishy, if companies aren't allowed to outsource development of another feature once they pass some sense of "large", when does it apply? What about the $1T pharmaceutical company that wants to use AI modeling? They're a large technically component company, if Eli Lily partnered with Gemini would you be sitting here saying that they also are abusing a monopolistic position that prevents competition in the AI model space?
> Now it feels like you're saying "this is anti-trust because someone accused them of anti-trust before".
No it's antitrust because they have a failed product, but purely by virtue of shutting out competitors from their platform they have been able to turn three years of flailing around into a win-by-outsourcing. What would Siri's position be like today if they hadn't blocked default voice assistants? Would they be able to recover from their plight to dominate the market just by adopting Google's technology? How would that measure against OpenAI, Anthropic or just using Google directly? This is why it's an antitrust issue.
No other thoughts on my actual questions? You're just addressing one-off sentences from my responses.
"it's antitrust because they have a failed product" is objectively hilarious
> What would Siri's position be like today if they hadn't blocked default voice assistants?
Probably pretty much the same. What would Gemini's position be like today if they hadn't blocked out default voice assistants? You only get Gemini when you use Gemini, just like you only got Siri when you use Siri (up until this deal takes effect). Also Siri has used ChatGPT already, so I'm not even convinced this is a valid criticism. They already didn't block OpenAI from being part of Siri.
> Would they be able to recover from their plight to dominate the market just by adopting Google's technology?
This is relevant how?
> How would that measure against OpenAI, Anthropic or just using Google directly?
How would what measure against other ai models? How would their ability to recover from a lack of investing in a better "homemade" AI model differ if they used OpenAI instead of Gemini? How does that have anything to do with antitrust? That's a business case study type of question. Also, shouldn't they be allowed to recover from their own lack of developing a model by using the best tool available to them?
> it must be punished for then choosing to use another companies model
The problem isn't that they used another company's model. It's that they are using a model made by the only company competing with them in the market of mobile OS.
> Gatekeeping - nobody else can be the default voice assistant or power Siri, so where does this leave eg OpenAI?
Sorry if I'm missing the point but if Apple had picked OpenAI, couldn't you have made the same comment? "nobody else can be the default voice assistant or power Siri, so where does this leave eg Gemini/Claude?".
Apple and Google have a duopoly on Mobile OS. If Apple uses Google's model for Siri, that means Apple and Google are using their duopoly in one market (mobile OS) to enforce a monopoly for Google in another (model for mobile personal assistant AI).
They are in a duopoly on the Mobile OS market, with no other significant player available. Google would be the sole integrated mobile AI, though there are competitors available if customers wanted to switch (customers for such products being the OS companies buying the AI services, not the end-users).
However I don't see the link, how they are "using their duopoly", and why "they" would be using it but only one of them benefits from it. Being a duopoly, or even a monopoly, is not against anti-trust law by itself.
Apple is already taking the risk of being blamed for their own AI right now, though (an AI that is much more prone to incredibly dumb errors than Gemini), so I don't find it that obvious that they wouldn't just continue taking the blame for Siri as they already do, except with an actually smarter Siri.
The stock market being at an all-time high, a crash in the usual meaning of this term is not, by definition, currently happening.
Since apparently this isn't what you mean by "crash", could you define what you mean by this term so we're all on the same page?