It really is failing more, and it’s well known amongst industry experts. It’s the oldest, largest, and most utilized region of AWS.
I’ve heard people say that the underlying physical infrastructure is older, but I think that’s a bit of speculation, although reasonable. The current outage is attributed to a “thermal event”, which does indeed suggest underlying physical hardware.
It’s also the most complex region for AWS themselves, as it’s the “control pad” for many of their global services.
Most of the other regions are fairly stable. Ohio (us-east-2) is a great choice if you're just starting out. Not sure about ca-central-1, but I've never heard anything bad about it.
It wasn't heavily utilized when I worked at AWS, until 2024.
If your customers are clusterrd in Toronto and Montreal, it probably makes a lot of sense to use ca-central-1. If you've got a lot of customers in Western Canada, us-west-2 is gonna have better network latency.
Other than a couple regions that had problems with their local network infrastructure (sa-east-1 was like that), there's little or nothing to differentiate the regions in terms of physical infrastructure and architecture.
> Why does it matter if volatility is lower than the market?
Because I can trivially beat the market by ~100% by going long on 3:1 margin.
The volatility is why that's a bad idea. One time out of five, the consequence of that investment strategy is 'The market had a crash and I lose everything'.
'Lol, YOLO' is not a great investment strategy for a well-ran country.
> One time out of five, the consequence of that investment strategy is 'The market had a crash and I lose everything'.
Which is why that strategy doesn't actually beat the market. Keep using it for 30 years and you're bankrupt.
Whereas if you put your money in a major index 30 years ago and left it there, or even 50 or more years ago, what result? Are you even in a bad place if you put all your money into the market in 1926 and left it there for 100 years?
Yes, if a retirement fund had put all their money into a stock index in 1926, it wouldn’t have been able to pay out pensions throughout the 1930s and 1940s and would have been bankrupt before the market eventually recovered.
Going full index is a great strategy for an individual person aged 20-50, but not a strategy for a pension fund which needs to continuously pay out.
During the Great Depression, the stock market stayed below 50% of its peak value for about 20 years. Imagine that the $600 billion turns into $300 billion overnight. It will only last 5-10 years without inflows, but the GDP has also dropped by 40% and inflows have plummeted.
It's still going back to the same assumptions that you're not only timing a depression but also
(a) don't have pre-funding (i.e., millions for an individual at the start of the depression),
(b) don't have CPPIB guardrails and auto-adjustment mechanisms,
(c) and it's not a partial income replacement scheme.
> It will only last 5-10 years without inflows
Without inflows? That's not realistic because people would still be contributing. In fact, CPPIB has triannual resets of contributions and in a recession, they'd up the contribution rate. In a recent actuarial audit, they found that if real returns dropped to 2.5%, then they'd only need to boost contributions from 9% to 11% to keep their 75-year sustainability target.
The advice that you need to taper off your investment portfolio risk as you get older doesn't really apply to people that have a nest egg. I know a lot of people that aren't necessarily living frugally and are told by their financial advisors that they might as well upgrade their cars, travel more, etc. They can cover their costs and don't have net worth > ~$3 million.
I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Do you have any interest in understanding why CPPIB invests the way they do and doesn’t seek the highest returns?
> if a retirement fund had put all their money into a stock index in 1926, it wouldn’t have been able to pay out pensions throughout the 1930s and 1940s
Point was that this/your rationale doesn't apply to CPPIB's situation.
Ponzi schemes always make current payments out of current inflows. The first 10 people get paid from the inflows from the next 100 people who get paid from the next 1000 people and so on, until you run out of people to sign up and the last group is left holding the bag. This is how Social Security works in the US because it started out by making payments to people who never paid in and was premised on the early 20th century fertility rate of >3.5 instead of the current ~1.6 to keep the system from collapsing, which is why the "trust fund" is running out of money -- it never had enough to cover future payments to begin with.
Whereas having individual years when the fund pays out more than it collected in interest is not a problem as long as that's not what happens on average.
This youtuber appears to be anti-active management. CPPIB is underperforming their own benchmarks and charging substantial active fees.
> Where 20 years ago the CPPIB had just 150 employees and total costs of $118-million, it now has more than 2,100 employees and total expenses (not including taxes or financing costs) in excess of $6-billion.
But...they don't appear to be terrible v. their peers, but that might be an indictment of pension funds.
"We achieved superior risk-adjusted returns" as an excuse for sovereign fund underperformance is nonsense. PE (depending on how levered it is) inherently has lower volatility than buying public stocks.
If your fund gets consistently lower returns than if you had just stuck everything in a 60/40 portfolio, the whole endeavor has failed.
I really like the ideal of just chucking it all in VTI (or, since it's Canada, some other equivalent). But does it still work at that scale? Or does the fund exert its own gravitational field on the index in question?
The gravitational field of indexes that large is one of the reasons why it works. The stock price of a company will generally increase when it's added to a major index because there are now so many more people trying to buy it as part of the index.
The risk is nominally that if you ever wanted to move a fund that large into some other investments, the act of selling would lower the price of the assets in the fund. But that's what happens no matter what you invest that amount of money in. But then widely distributed whole-market indexes would tend to mitigate that.
The real problem with this is that it disconnects what people invest in from the fundamentals of the companies. Promising companies don't get as much investment if they're not in an index, and mismanaged companies get too much if they are.
> The gravitational field of indexes that large is one of the reasons why it works
I'm confused because my question was whether a sovereign wealth fund could move an index by too much. Not about the issues with index investing (which IMO are mostly overblown).
LLM are a text prediction engine. Starting the prompt with “you are a helpful assistant” help make subsequent text prediction more in line of that of a helpful assistant.
We don’t know if Palantir is using claude for those uses. Though anthropic would not know for sure either.
I do agree with your point that Amodei is playing a game though. Whether he’s winning the bigger picture or not it’s unclear. His red lines are already so watered out, like how domestic surveillance is not ok, but international? totally fine.
That's true. With the risks of LLMs applied to surveillance though, I think it's a "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" moment. Association is guilt unless proven otherwise.
It’s like money laundering, but now responsibility laundering.
Anthropic released Claude saying “hey be careful. But now that enables the masses to build OpenClaw and go “hold my bear”. Now the masses people using OpenClaw had no idea what responsibility they should hold.
I think eventually we will have laws like “you are responsible for your AI’s work”. Much like how driver is (often) responsible for car crashes, not the car companies.
Yes larger format TV is getting more affordable, but I don’t think larger living room is catching up. Watching tv in general also feels like a dying trend. I would not be bullish on larger tv getting popular outside niche enthusiasts market (with money to buy a mansion)
this is the whole message of this hype that you can churn out 500 commits a day relatively confidently the way you have clang churn out 500 assemblies without reading them. We might not be 100% there but the hype is looking slightly into the future and even though I don't see the difference to Claude code, I tend to agree that this is the new way to do things even if something breaks on average it's safe enough
I agree. It is basically claude code running dangerously all the time. That is actually how I use CC most of the time, but I do trust Anthropic more than random github repo.
(I have the same sentiment about manifest v3 and adblocker, but somehow HN groupthink is very different there than here)
Edit: imagine cowork was released like this. HN would go NUTS.
Last i heard azure outage it wasn’t even on HN frontpage
reply