Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply. This is handled in economics with the idea of the "velocity of money" which conceptually captures the large range of factors by which prices can increase due to factors beyond money supply, for example an energy price shock or changing consumer and business expectations that result in changes in spending and investment patterns.
> Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply.
Money supply always changes. But yes, inflation is possible without changing money supply, if for example economy shrinks or there's some process that reactivated dormant capital that people had just sitting around and not being used by the economy.
In the end it's always the same thing. More money than it should be. It's just that "should be" is very complex and "more money" only a little bit simpler.
$1 in Jan 2005 is only 1.69 today, not $4 because the velocity of money has decreased dramatically as it has pooled towards the top of the income/wealth spectrum where it doesn't get spent or productively invested.
Bulk of it is that, but some of it is that larger economy needs more money to run. So while there was 4 food money supply increase the legitimate demand also increased somewhat. Exact numbers might be hard to pinpoint because we tend to measure economy in dollars but still it wouldn't be $4 even if the rich didn't get disproportionately wealthy from this supply.
> This was the Centaur hypothesis in the early days of chess programs and it hasn't been true for a long time.
> Chess programs of course have a well defined algorithm.
Ironically, that also "hasn't been true for a long time". The best chess engines humans have written with "defined algorithms" were bested by RL (alphazero) engines a long time ago. The best of the best are now NNUE + algos (latest stockfish). And even then NN based engines (Leela0) can occasionally take some games from Stockfish. NNs are scarily good. And the bitter lesson is bitter for a reason.
No, the alphazero papers used an outdated version of Stockfish for comparison and have always been disputed.
Stockfish NNUE was announced to be 80 ELO higher than the default. I don't find it frustrating. NNs excel at detecting patterns in a well defined search space.
Writing evaluation functions is tedious. It isn't a sign of NN intelligence.
Can humans really give useful input to computers? I thought we have reached a state where computers do stuff no human can understand and will crush human players.
It would be really interesting if they had used a control for gender by also comparing results to something like 1, people of all genders who had experienced some sort of violent encounter while walking at night or 2, people who grew up in relatively violent places.
I historically have lived in relatively more dangerous places, attended a pretty violent high school and, while male and physically fit, am not an intimidating presence. I wonder what my results would look like compared to someone from the suburbs or an nfl linebacker.
The other thing they don't mention at all is that especially with walking and biking, the reality of safety is important, but so is the _perception_ of safety. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's very important in this type of work to handle that distinction explicitly. The quote "Why can’t we live in a world where women don’t have to think about these things?" doesn't really acknowledge that. Random sexual violence on the street is pretty rare compared to in someone's home, dorm room, etc. How much of this fear is driven by Law and Order SVU's cultural impact? A genuine question, not a criticism.
Oldest I've seen is a 15 years old XC hardtail that has been put to sleep only because its owner slammed it into a tree opening a hole in the top tube. No human was hurt, fortunately, rest of the bike was still in great condition.
Curious to see the +10 years old full sus steel frames, though.
my 25 year old aluminum hard tail begs me to share that while this is factually correct, the lifetime for an alloy bike frame isn't a real practical limitation, just a talking point.
I'm curious what you think the vibration dampening properties of steel are. It's very notable to me that high quality steel bikes almost always come with a carbon fork if not suspension and that tuning forks are made of steel according to wikipedia. To me steel is in the "resonator" category, not something that dampens vibration particularly well.
I also wonder if people like the ride quality of steel because, like very thin high pressure tires, it carries high frequency vibrations that _feel_ fast but science tells us clearly are not good for going fast.
Partly on my own experiences, used to have a steel bike w/o suspension that I rode for thousands km and it was a joy, the next bikes I've had were aluminum and locking the suspension makes them unbearable. But yes, could be the geometry as well.
they dampen vibrations better than steel and titanium too tbh. I've never understood the "ride feel" thing about metal frames. Metal tubes are very resonant. that ride feel is just the same vibrations that make on 23m tires _feel_ faster compared to 30m but the science is clear that high frequency vibrations are bad.
For MTBs, a steel hardtail does feel very, very different from an aluminum one. Steel feels springy and just absorbs a lot of vibrations. You can feel it in your ankles after a ride. Definitely there is a large difference between steel/titanium and everything else.
I would be very suspicious that some combination of different tires and different geometry between the bikes your comparing is much more responsible for that perceived difference than the different metals. Wearing cushioned running shoes instead of indoor soccer shoes would have a bigger effect i would guess.
