Very case dependent of course. There are loads of small towns that have stagnant or shrinking populations all across the US.

Shhhhh, it's way more fun to spout cynical and clever quips about a publication without backing it up with any reasoning.

Why?

Wow, I find economist to be one of the best publications to read about global events. Can you say more about what you think they lie about?

Just take their cover pages on China over the last decade. Every prediction has been wrong. The same story for India or any of the BRICS nations.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/29/the-great-fall-...

https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2023-04-01

https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2023-05-13

https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2024-04-06

The blog actually spells it "Artic", not "Arctic". I wonder if the blog or the company misspelled it.

In the video they are clear that the company misspelled it

What is the difference between "beauty" and "elegance" of a proof?

"Beauty" is something I cannot define. "Elegance", as I use it, is the use of tools as precisely as possible. It is a technical term, whereas "beauty" I cannot define.

Of course, that is my view of it.

Maybe English isn't your first language, but these are basically synonyms.

Maybe English is also not your first language, because they are not synonyms

When writing code I also believed in the "beauty" and "elegance" because IMO it opens up all kinds of different opportunities that involve using or organically growing or improving that code. It turns out that if it doesn't solve a quantifiable problem, (mostly) nobody cares. And the pace of innovating in the field outgrows the pace (by a large) of keeping things "beautiful and elegant".

The middle east is in Asia, no?

Reminds me of the doherty threshold. When will AI respond in less than 400 milliseconds?

By this logic all money is inherently worthless too, and every time you buy a sandwich at the local corner shop you're just passing off that worthless piece of paper to the next schmuck.

In reality, things have value because people believe they have value. That doesn't mean every company that doesn't pay dividends is a speculative tulip bubble.

That ".125% is not much to matter" argument also cuts the other way, against the Matt Levine argument that the S&P is excluding trillion dollar companies and should adjust the rules for them.

Should S&P really adjust the rules for such a small portion of the index?

Yes, because that number increases to 1-2% of the index after the IPO lockup period ends.

There are three IPOs coming this year that meet this criteria.

Then it seems pretty disingenuous to keep arguing it's only 0.125% so it's not a big deal