I've noticed something similar in Facebook marketplace ads for used furniture. Most of the images are AI generated to look like a Pottery Barn catalog, then the last image will be the actual item, full of scratches and other damage, sitting in a messy garage.
I've started to see this on Etsy and Wayfair too, where there will be a listing that is clearly just MDF flatpack being resold from China, but the AI-generated images wildly exaggerate the proportions of it.
Ironically, ChatGPT is decently good at ferreting these out. Like I sent it a screenshot of that listing and it not only helped me find where the original item was for sale, but also pointed out how the dimensioned diagram shows it as being just 49" tall, whereas the "in real life" image looks like it's at least six feet, based on it coming up over the top of the picture frame.
I ended up engaging a local woodworker to make me a piece like it instead. Obviously an order of magnitude difference in price, but it will actually be real solid walnut and finished to match my dining table.
Yes and even if all they do is ask it to stage an empty room picture with furniture and decorations it will make improvements like adding a doorway to a room that doesn’t exist.
The worst I've seen changed the view out a window from an alley to a private garden. Most also add natural light that isn't possible, and in some cases I'm convinced the generate image is depicting the space as larger than it actually is, with furniture and spaces that wouldn't fit in reality
I once heard about a company that specialized in making furniture about 10% smaller than normal for use in show rooms to make the spaces look larger. Not surprised they do it with AI if they can.
Wide angle lenses have been a thing in real estate photography since forever, but you would always have the reference of the furniture to ground your perception. Having furniture be slightly downsized is diabolical.
Halfway through I was sure that there would be a reveal at the end of the article that the article itself was stored in the site's favicon, thus explaining the short, terse sentences. I was genuinely disappointed when I realized it wasn't. Missed opportunity!
I'm in academia and used to use LaTeX for everything, and have switched almost 100% to typst. Not many of my colleagues are aware of typst but a few use it.
I think there is hope though. Grad students are slowly picking it up, and they are the future of academia. I've seen similar transitions away from Fortran and Matlab as grad students embrace different tools than what their advisors use.
Yes, I am a graduate student majoring in mathematics, and my classmates and I strongly hate tikz, especially when drawing relatively complex diagrams like TQFT. But we discovered cetz, and we really love it
As for ordinary formula input, we usually already have our preferred snippets, so tpyst doesn’t offer much advantage. But for drawing figures, typst is really incredibly powerful
Referencing files somewhere in or below a document's root from a package has always been pretty convoluted. This should simplify setups like mine that depend on local custom packages.
> Bonds are no longer recommended. Current research indicates 100% equities to be the best composition leading up to, and past, retirement.
Are you referring to Anarkulova et al? Might be worth mentioning that the fixed income part is replaced with international equity, not more domestic equity.
That’s been something I’ve started doing. The nice part of the bond chunk of my investment portfolio is the current income aspect of it, with monthly dividends that give an annualized return of a touch under 4% on top of the capital growth.
So there’s two ways you make money from any mutual fund: the first is that the value of the shares can go up (that’s called capital growth). The second is through dividends and distributions. Dividends will be higher with a bond fund than stocks just because the trend for the last few decades has been for corporations to focus on growing share price rather than paying out dividends to shareholders. Distributions are realized capital gains in the fund that are paid out to shareholders, typically annually or semiannually.¹ Stock funds usually pay dividends on a quarterly basis, while bond funds may pay monthly. In my case, I’m getting a monthly dividend of about ⅓% from my bond fond (Fidelity bond index fund), although checking my records, the share price has been relatively steady over the last few years so my IRR is not that much above the dividend rate.
Another good option for something that can give good current income is REIT stocks. The management fees on the funds that specialize in these tend to be high for my tastes (I like passively managed funds with management fees that could be rounding errors) so when I’ve had money in REITs, I’ve typically looked at the top stocks in the REIT funds and just bought those directly with dividend reinvestment. Note that because of the nature of REIT dividends and taxes, it’s better to use tax-advantaged accounts to buy these than to put money in a regular retail account towards them.²
⸻
1. Back during the first dotcom goldrush when tech stocks were especially volatile (1999–2001 in particular), people who bought dotcom mutual funds in taxable accounts often ended up with a big distribution from the fund and a drop in share price greater than that distribution so that they would end up not only losing money on their investment but they also had a tax bill for their troubles since distributions will count as realized capital gains.
2. Important to note that I’m not a financial advisor and my advice is probably garbage.
Their definition of long run and your definition of long run are probably different.
Also, it should be noted, just because it's the optimal to have the most $'s that shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to survive your retirement with "enough".
And it should also be mentioned, most people can't stomach holding 100% equities, for a very good reason. When the 40-60% market crash happens, people get emotional and make emotional decisions. Sure there are the lucky few that can hold out, but most can't. Are you going to be one of the few lucky ones? If you haven't yet been through it once(last one in the USA was 2008/9), how do you know for sure?
For most people, $VT (or VWRA) is optimal. You should have a U.S. tilt because most growth is coming out of the U.S. $VT will naturally rebalance into international equities on that growth. If you already have a U.S. heavy portfolio and want more international exposure, $VXUS.
Lots of confusion and misunderstanding in these comments. Not surprising, given the highly charged nature of the subject. I highly recommend Ray Madoff's book The Second Estate [1] to learn more about the topic.
I believe some of Ray Madoff's points are that the tax code and most tax intuitions kinda differ.
There's the idea that "wealth" gains tend to not be taxed for a variety of reasons. The common parlance of "Buy, Borrow, Die" category things. The "step-up in basis" category things - i.e. no capital gains tax realized on lots of inherited wealth. (The inheritance tax might trigger in some cases, but oddly the capital gains tax often might not be triggered on transferred assets because they were never sold and the new possessor will be taxed at the stepped up received value if they ever sell. So there's a chunk of appreciation that never received capital gains taxation.) Trust related things.
There's the idea that 501(c)(4)s allow wealth to be transferred untaxed while retaining control over the assets (particularly because those organizations can engage in political activity, but I'd guess generally some of the organizations exert lots of influence/prestige.)
So perhaps OP is suggesting that maybe there's some fungibility in income tax % and wealth tax %, but when you look at the tax code the equivalency looks pretty weak currently.
