Microsoft Has a Problem: Lack of Demand for Its AI Products

Keep following through the logic... You manage to hook someone who absolutely knows you're a scammer, and they keep responding to you taking up precious time you could be spending with someone who is actually likely to give you money. So, what is the upside to getting a response from someone who is never ever going to give you anything?

You’re assuming that there’s no cost involved in moving a potential victim through the pipeline. I’m sure AI has changed the game, but the general idea was that beyond the initial blast of spam you would have someone actually responding to those who fell for it. Putting in signals that it was a scam filtered out individuals who would waste scammer time because they would eventually figure it out before falling victim. By selecting for people who literally can’t pick up on obvious signs of a scam, you save yourself a lot of time and energy.

Byrow, bycol, map, reduce, scan, makearray, and most recently groupby and pivotby.

Basically functions that take a lambda argument and apply it over some range.

While not strictly necessary, it is a great power multiplier.

It helps as it is both a gauge of the success of the strategy, and also a lever where the process can be fine tuned, eg. slowly buying stock then strategically dumping in the right time, correlated with other external shocks can have wider effect to whole industries through controlling the public opinion on specific industries.

That's what's meant by efficiency, it's allocating it to the place that has the highest return on investment.

As you point out, in practice what's efficient is what can capture the highest return, not necessarily the highest return per se. If say investing in education had high returns society wide but those returns couldn't be captured, that's not an efficient use of private capital.

The operating principle here being that prices are units of information, which in aggregate reveal some combination of market demand, present supply, production costs, etc. All else being equal, an investor who's looking to put an investment into a new business will try to find the best rate of return. The existence of a relatively higher profit margin for an industry suggests an unmet market need, and then directs the flow of capital into it (if you expect that for every $1 you invest into a roofing nail plant will return $1.25 over the next year vs a $2 return from a new insulin plant, more new cash will flow into the insulin plant, more insulin gets made, and if the investor guessed right about the demand for it, they turn a profit). In a sentence, money flows towards trying to give people what we think they want more of.

The theory posited above is that you could try to manipulate these signals as a sort of economic warfare. If you expect that every dollar you put into our aforementioned roofing nail factory will get you minuscule or negative return, nobody's going to want to invest in building/expanding nail factories, and they'll put their cash somewhere it can grow instead. This is all well and good so long as you've got happy trading relationships with people who can sell you nails, but if one day the nails stop coming--you've got a supply chain shock until you either open new factories or find someone else willing to sell nails to you. The theory here being that if you had a LOT of goods that became tied up in a single point of failure--someone forcing that failure could create a great deal of internal instability to be exploited for geopolitical ends.

Depends what you compare it with. I grew up in the post soviet union. That system allocated resources to various monopolies who were too big to fail. Turns out allocating capital based on who can make things that people want/need to buy, and do it with a profit, multiplies said capital way faster. From this point of view, over time your initial base grows into all kinds of industries etc. That's probably why the USA won the cold war.

I think its obvious the GP means free market capitalism, which is what almost everyone who favours capitalism thinks is the form it should take.

China uses Capitalism as a tool where the Party feels it would be beneficial (for the Party), and crushes it mercilessly when it gets in the way (other than this real estate problem they have right now).

In the U.S. we have mistaken Capitalism for a religion, and so it wags the dog, so to speak. Since our founding we have made some attempts at finding a balance between our use of the tools of Capitalism and socialism (in more the Democratic Socialism style, rather than the Communism style), and we had a good run in the decades after WWII. But starting with McCarthyism, and really picking up under Regan we have prided ourselves on adopting Capitalism as a religion, and it really shows up in both the income inequality as well as the increasing role of (and corrupting influence of) money in our politics/government.

Arizona comes to mind because it's the outlier that everyone knows about, the company that bucks the capitalist pressure. Your choice to use it basically proves my point.

Capitalism outside regulatory capture looks like the East India company. You are basically giving me 'no REAL communism has ever been tried'.

Good doesn't mean moral in this case, it means valuable. Capitalism, or whatever the fuck we have right now, doesn't create much real value, but instead it creates a lot of fake value that we just proxy.

And I say "or whatever the fuck" because, as you point out, it's not really capitalism. And maybe it never was - after all, the US Golden Era was when we had the most central planning, the most social services, and the highest taxes.

But everybody right now is exploiting one teensy little flaw of the economy - humans don't live very long. There's no reason to make stuff good for later when you can take a cash advance and get rich now. Everything is always someone else's problem.

I think one fun case study is superstar CEOs. They're so highly desirable, and they work 5 years at a company and "turn it around" before moving onto the next. But if you look at the company after they leave, it's in shambles. And yet, they are the most sought after CEOs. You don't want the Arizona Green Tea guy, no, you want the guy who ran Chipotle into the ground. But hey, at least he increased their stock price for, like, a little bit.

Missed a point above - that for said short-term investor... that strategy doesn't actually work, since a "sell high buy low" strategy on individual stocks is outperformed by just holding ETFs long-term.

So really, which investors does short-term stock juicing benefit? Insider traders, I guess.

I just think you are the other person who replied to me are making the same mistake, which is mixing the means of accomplishing a goal with the goal itself. This is a mistake I see a lot (especially in software development), where people get too attached to a specific means or method that they end up confusing the method itself with the actual thing that needs to be accomplished.

The goal for an investor is captured in the stock price itself. In programming terms, a corporation is a function whose output is its stock price/market cap, and revenue is but one of a host of inputs into that corporation that determines what the stock price is. Other inputs can be operating expenses, whether dividends are issued, future prospects for the company such as entering new markets etc etc... and you can have beliefs about how those various inputs affect the output or how these inputs change the output over time (short term vs. long term), that's perfectly fine... but when push comes to shove, the goal is not the revenue, it's not entering a new market, it's not reducing operating expenses... the goal is increasing the stock price (well technically the market cap).

Oh yeah it's absolutely terrible for the business and its customers.