10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.




1 518 shares, 69 trendiness

De-dollarization: The end of dollar dominance?

Skip to main con­tent

De-dollarization: Is the US dol­lar los­ing its dom­i­nance?

Top dol­lar no more? Learn more about the fac­tors threat­en­ing the dom­i­nance of the world’s re­serve cur­rency.

While the U. S.’s share in global ex­ports and out­put has de­clined, the dol­lar’s trans­ac­tional dom­i­nance is still ev­i­dent in ar­eas in­clud­ing FX vol­umes and trade in­voic­ing.

On the other hand, de-dol­lar­iza­tion is un­fold­ing in cen­tral bank FX re­serves, where the share of USD has slid to a two-decade low.

In fixed in­come, the share of for­eign own­er­ship in the U.S. Treasury mar­ket has fallen over the last 15 years, point­ing to re­duced re­liance on the dol­lar.

De-dollarization is most vis­i­ble in com­mod­ity mar­kets, where a large and grow­ing pro­por­tion of en­ergy is be­ing priced in non-dol­lar-de­nom­i­nated con­tracts.

The U.S. dol­lar is the world’s pri­mary re­serve cur­rency, and it is also the most widely used cur­rency for trade and other in­ter­na­tional trans­ac­tions. However, its hege­mony has come into ques­tion in re­cent times due to geopo­lit­i­cal and geostrate­gic shifts. As a re­sult, de-dol­lar­iza­tion has in­creas­ingly be­come a sub­stan­tive topic of dis­cus­sion among in­vestors, cor­po­rates and mar­ket par­tic­i­pants more broadly.

What are the po­ten­tial im­pli­ca­tions of de-dol­lar­iza­tion, and how is it play­ing out in global mar­kets and trade?

In short, de-dol­lar­iza­tion en­tails a sig­nif­i­cant re­duc­tion in the use of dol­lars in world trade and fi­nan­cial trans­ac­tions, de­creas­ing na­tional, in­sti­tu­tional and cor­po­rate de­mand for the green­back.

The con­cept of de-dol­lar­iza­tion re­lates to changes in the struc­tural de­mand for the dol­lar that would re­late to its sta­tus as a re­serve cur­rency. This en­com­passes ar­eas that re­late to the longer-term use of the dol­lar, such as trans­ac­tional dom­i­nance in FX vol­umes or com­modi­ties trade, de­nom­i­na­tion of li­a­bil­i­ties and share in cen­tral bank FX re­serves,” said Luis Oganes, head of Global Macro Research at J.P. Morgan.

Importantly, this struc­tural shift is dis­tinct from the cycli­cal de­mand for the green­back, which is shorter term and has in re­cent times been dri­ven by U.S. ex­cep­tion­al­ism, in­clud­ing the rel­a­tive out­per­for­mance of the U.S. eq­uity mar­ket. The world has be­come long on the dol­lar in re­cent years, but as U.S. ex­cep­tion­al­ism erodes, it should be rea­son­able to ex­pect the over­hang in USD longs to di­min­ish as well,” Oganes said.

What are the causes and im­pli­ca­tions of de-dol­lar­iza­tion?

There are two main fac­tors that could erode the dol­lar’s sta­tus. The first in­cludes ad­verse events that un­der­mine the per­ceived safety and sta­bil­ity of the green­back — and the U.S.’s over­all stand­ing as the world’s lead­ing eco­nomic, po­lit­i­cal and mil­i­tary power. For in­stance, in­creased po­lar­iza­tion in the U.S. could jeop­ar­dize its gov­er­nance, which un­der­pins its role as a global safe haven. Ongoing U.S. tar­iff pol­icy could also cause in­vestors to lose con­fi­dence in American as­sets.

The sec­ond fac­tor in­volves pos­i­tive de­vel­op­ments out­side the U.S. that boost the cred­i­bil­ity of al­ter­na­tive cur­ren­cies — eco­nomic and po­lit­i­cal re­forms in China, for ex­am­ple. A can­di­date re­serve cur­rency must be per­ceived as safe and sta­ble and must pro­vide a source of liq­uid­ity that is suf­fi­cient to meet grow­ing global de­mand,” said Alexander Wise, who cov­ers Long-Term Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

Fundamentally, de-dol­lar­iza­tion could shift the bal­ance of power among coun­tries, and this could, in turn, re­shape the global econ­omy and mar­kets. The im­pact would be most acutely felt in the U.S., where de-dol­lar­iza­tion would likely lead to a broad de­pre­ci­a­tion and un­der­per­for­mance of U.S. fi­nan­cial as­sets ver­sus the rest of the world.

For U.S. eq­ui­ties, out­right and rel­a­tive re­turns would be neg­a­tively im­pacted by di­vest­ment or re­al­lo­ca­tion away from U.S. mar­kets and a se­vere loss in con­fi­dence. There would also likely be up­ward pres­sure on real yields due to the par­tial di­vest­ment of U.S. fixed in­come by in­vestors, or the di­ver­si­fi­ca­tion or re­duc­tion of in­ter­na­tional re­serve al­lo­ca­tions,” Wise said.

The U.S.’s share in global ex­ports and out­put has de­clined over the past three decades, while China’s has in­creased sub­stan­tially. Nonetheless, the trans­ac­tional dom­i­nance of the dol­lar is still ev­i­dent in FX vol­umes, trade in­voic­ing, cross-bor­der li­a­bil­i­ties de­nom­i­na­tion and for­eign cur­rency debt is­suance.

In 2022, the green­back dom­i­nated 88% of traded FX vol­umes — close to record highs — while the Chinese yuan (CNY) made up just 7%, ac­cord­ing to data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Likewise, there is lit­tle sign of USD ero­sion in trade in­voic­ing. The share of USD and EUR has held steady over the past two decades at around 40–50%. While the share of CNY is in­creas­ing in China’s cross-bor­der trans­ac­tions as it moves to con­duct bi­lat­eral trade in its own cur­rency terms, it is still low from a global stand­point,” Oganes ob­served.

The dol­lar has also stoutly main­tained its su­pe­ri­or­ity when it comes to cross-bor­der li­a­bil­i­ties, where its mar­ket share stands at 48%. And in for­eign cur­rency debt is­suance, its share has re­mained con­stant since the global fi­nan­cial cri­sis, at around 70%. The day­light from the euro, whose share is at 20%, is even greater on this front,” Oganes added.

On the other hand, de-dol­lar­iza­tion is un­fold­ing in cen­tral bank FX re­serves, where the share of USD has slid to a two-decade low in tan­dem with its macro foot­print. However, the dol­lar share in FX re­serves was lower in the early 1990s, so the re­cent de­cline to just un­der 60% is not com­pletely out of the norm,” said Meera Chandan, co-head of Global FX Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

While much of the re­al­lo­ca­tion of FX re­serves has gone to CNY and other cur­ren­cies, USD and EUR still dom­i­nate lev­els. The CNY foot­print is still very small, even if grow­ing, and its push for bi­lat­eral in­voic­ing is likely to keep this trend on the up­swing,” Chandan noted.

The main de-dol­lar­iza­tion trend in FX re­serves, how­ever, per­tains to the grow­ing de­mand for gold. Seen as an al­ter­na­tive to heav­ily in­debted fiat cur­ren­cies, the share of gold in FX re­serves has in­creased, led by emerg­ing mar­ket (EM) cen­tral banks — China, Russia and Türkiye have been the largest buy­ers in the last decade. Overall, while the share of gold in FX re­serves in EM is still low at 9%, the fig­ure is more than dou­ble the 4% seen a decade ago; the cor­re­spond­ing share for DM coun­tries is much larger at 20%. This in­creased de­mand has in turn partly dri­ven the cur­rent bull mar­ket in gold, with prices fore­cast to climb to­ward $4,000/oz by mid-2026.

The dol­lar’s share in FX re­serves has de­clined in tan­dem with its macro foot­print

USD share of FX re­serves (lhs; un­ad­justed, %) vs. an av­er­age of the z-scores of U.S. share of global GDP and ex­ports (rhs; 1960–2023)

The dol­lar’s share of FX re­serves has de­clined in tan­dem with the U.S.’s share of global GDP and ex­ports.

In a sign of de-dol­lar­iza­tion in bond mar­kets, the share of for­eign own­er­ship in the U.S. Treasury mar­ket has been de­clin­ing over the last 15 years.

USD as­sets, prin­ci­pally liq­uid Treasuries, ac­count for the ma­jor­ity of al­lo­cated FX re­serves. However, de­mand for Treasuries has stag­nated among for­eign of­fi­cial in­sti­tu­tions, as the growth of FX re­serves has slowed and the USDs share of re­serves has dropped from its re­cent peak. Similarly, the back­drop for for­eign pri­vate de­mand has weak­ened — as yields have risen across DM gov­ern­ment bond mar­kets, Treasuries have be­come rel­a­tively less at­trac­tive. While for­eign in­vestors re­main the largest con­stituent within the Treasury mar­ket, their share of own­er­ship has fallen to 30% as of early 2025 — down from a peak of above 50% dur­ing the GFC.

Although for­eign de­mand has not kept pace with the growth of the Treasury mar­ket for more than a decade, we must con­sider what more ag­gres­sive ac­tion could mean. Japan is the largest for­eign cred­i­tor and alone holds more than $1.1 tril­lion Treasuries, or nearly 4% of the mar­ket. Accordingly, any sig­nif­i­cant for­eign sell­ing would be im­pact­ful, dri­ving yields higher,” said Jay Barry, head of Global Rates Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

According to es­ti­mates by J.P. Morgan Research, each 1-percentage-point de­cline in for­eign hold­ings rel­a­tive to GDP (or ap­prox­i­mately $300 bil­lion of Treasuries) would re­sult in yields ris­ing by more than 33 ba­sis points (bp). While this is not our base case, it nonethe­less un­der­scores the im­pact of for­eign in­vest­ment on risk-free rates,” Barry added.

Today, a large and grow­ing pro­por­tion of en­ergy is be­ing priced in non-dol­lar-de­nom­i­nated con­tracts.”

De-dollarization is most vis­i­ble in com­mod­ity mar­kets, where the green­back’s in­flu­ence on pric­ing has di­min­ished. Today, a large and grow­ing pro­por­tion of en­ergy is be­ing priced in non-dol­lar-de­nom­i­nated con­tracts,” said Natasha Kaneva, head of Global Commodities Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

For ex­am­ple, due to Western sanc­tions, Russian oil prod­ucts ex­ported east­ward and south­ward are be­ing sold in the lo­cal cur­ren­cies of buy­ers, or in the cur­ren­cies of coun­tries Russia per­ceives as friendly. Among buy­ers, India, China and Turkey are all ei­ther us­ing or seek­ing al­ter­na­tives to the dol­lar. Saudi Arabia is also con­sid­er­ing adding yuan-de­nom­i­nated fu­tures con­tracts in the pric­ing model of Saudi Arabian oil, though progress has been slow.

Notably, cross-bor­der trade set­tle­ment in yuan is gain­ing ground out­side of oil too. Some Indian com­pa­nies have started pay­ing for Russian coal im­ports in yuan, even with­out the in­volve­ment of Chinese in­ter­me­di­aries. Bangladesh also re­cently de­cided to pay Russia for its 1.4 GW nu­clear power plant in yuan.

The de-dol­lar­iza­tion trend in the com­mod­ity trade is a boon for coun­tries like India, China, Brazil, Thailand and Indonesia, which can now not only buy oil at a dis­count, but also pay for it with their own lo­cal cur­ren­cies,” Kaneva noted. This re­duces the need for pre­cau­tion­ary re­serves of U.S. dol­lars, U.S. Treasuries and oil, which might in turn free up cap­i­tal to be de­ployed in growth-boost­ing do­mes­tic pro­jects.”

At the other end of the spec­trum, de­posit dol­lar­iza­tion — where a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of a coun­try’s bank de­posits are de­nom­i­nated in the U.S. dol­lar in­stead of the lo­cal cur­rency — is still ev­i­dent in many EM coun­tries. The ten­dency of EM res­i­dents to dol­lar­ize in times of stress ap­pears to be cor­re­lated across mar­kets,” said Jonny Goulden, head of EM Fixed Income Strategy at J.P. Morgan.

According to J.P. Morgan Research, dol­lar de­posits have grown mostly un­in­ter­rupted over the last decade in EM, reach­ing around $830 bil­lion for a sam­ple set of 18 EM coun­tries (excluding China, Singapore and Hong Kong). While there are large re­gional di­ver­gences in de­posit dol­lar­iza­tion across EM, all re­gions are more dol­lar­ized now than they were a decade ago,” Goulden noted. Latin America is the most dol­lar­ized re­gion, with an ag­gre­gate dol­lar­iza­tion rate of 19.1%. EMEAs rate stands at 15.2%, while Asia (excluding China, Singapore and Hong Kong) has the low­est rate at 9.7%.

China is the ex­cep­tion, as its dol­lar­iza­tion rate has been per­sis­tently falling since 2017. This is not sur­pris­ing, as this was around the time when U.S.–China re­la­tions be­gan shift­ing into their cur­rent state, marked by the trade war and grow­ing diplo­matic, se­cu­rity and geopo­lit­i­cal ten­sions,” Goulden said. This sug­gests that China, along­side progress on de-dol­lar­iz­ing its own cross-bor­der trans­ac­tions, has ef­fec­tively been de-dol­lar­iz­ing the de­posits of Chinese res­i­dents, adding an­other di­men­sion to its ef­forts to sep­a­rate from U.S. dom­i­nance.”

Get more in­sights straight to your in­box with J.P. Morgan’s In Context newslet­ter.

J.P. Morgan Global Research brings you the lat­est up­dates and analy­sis of President Trump’s tar­iff pro­pos­als and their eco­nomic im­pact.

Discover the fac­tors con­tribut­ing to U.S. ex­cep­tion­al­ism and how this is play­ing out across mar­kets. Could re­cent de­vel­op­ments in­clud­ing tar­iffs and the rise of DeepSeek un­der­mine American out­per­for­mance?

Leveraging cut­ting-edge tech­nol­ogy and in­no­v­a­tive tools to bring clients in­dus­try-lead­ing analy­sis and in­vest­ment ad­vice.

...

Read the original on www.jpmorgan.com »

2 470 shares, 28 trendiness

The Incredible Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

The Incredible Overcomplexity of the Shadcn Radio Button

The other day I was asked to up­date the vi­sual de­sign of ra­dio but­tons in a web app at work. I fig­ured it could­n’t be that com­pli­cated. It’s just a ra­dio but­ton right?

Boom! Done. Radio but­tons are a built-in HTML el­e­ment. They’ve been around for 30 years. The browser makes it easy. Time for a cof­fee.

I dug into our code­base and re­al­ized we were us­ing two React com­po­nents from

Shadcn to power our ra­dio but­tons: and

For those un­fa­mil­iar with Shadcn, it’s a UI frame­work that pro­vides a bunch of pre­built UI com­po­nents for use in your web­sites. Unlike tra­di­tional UI frame­works like Bootstrap, you don’t im­port it with a script tag or

npm in­stall. Instead you run a com­mand that copies the com­po­nents into your code­base.

Here’s the code that was ex­ported from Shadcn into our pro­ject:

use client”;

im­port * as React from react”;

im­port * as RadioGroupPrimitive from @radix-ui/react-radio-group”;

im­port { CircleIcon } from lucide-react”;

im­port { cn } from @/lib/utils”;

func­tion RadioGroup({

class­Name,

…props

}: React. ComponentProps

Woof… 3 im­ports and 45 lines of code. And it’s im­port­ing a third party icon li­brary just to ren­der a cir­cle. (Who needs CSS bor­der-ra­dius or the SVG

el­e­ment when you can add a third party de­pen­dency in­stead?)

All of the styling is done by the 30 dif­fer­ent Tailwind classes in the markup. I should prob­a­bly just tweak those to fix the styling is­sues.

But now I’m dis­tracted, an­noyed, and cu­ri­ous. Where’s the ac­tual ? What’s the point of all this? Let’s dig a lit­tle deeper.

The Shadcn com­po­nents im­port com­po­nents from an­other li­brary called Radix. For those un­fa­mil­iar with Radix, it’s a UI frame­work that pro­vides a bunch of pre­built UI com­po­nents…

Wait a sec­ond! Isn’t that what I just said about Shadcn? What gives? Why do we need both? Let’s see what the Radix docs say:

Radix Primitives is a low-level UI com­po­nent li­brary with a fo­cus on ac­ces­si­bil­ity, cus­tomiza­tion and de­vel­oper ex­pe­ri­ence. You can use these com­po­nents ei­ther as the base layer of your de­sign sys­tem, or adopt them in­cre­men­tally.

So Radix pro­vides un­styled com­po­nents, and then Shadcn adds styles on top of that. How does Radix work? You can see for your­self on GitHub:

https://​github.com/​radix-ui/

This is get­ting even more com­pli­cated: 215 lines of React code im­port­ing 7 other files. But what does it ac­tu­ally do?

Taking a look in the browser

Let’s look in the browser dev tools to see if we can tell what’s go­ing on.

Okay, in­stead of a ra­dio in­put it’s ren­der­ing a but­ton with an SVG cir­cle in­side it? Weird.

It’s also us­ing

ARIA at­trib­utes

to tell screen read­ers and other as­sis­tive tools that the but­ton is ac­tu­ally a ra­dio but­ton.

ARIA at­trib­utes al­low you to change the se­man­tic mean­ing of HTML el­e­ments. For ex­am­ple, you can say that a but­ton is ac­tu­ally a ra­dio but­ton. (If you wanted to do that for some strange rea­son.)

If you can use a na­tive HTML el­e­ment or at­tribute with the se­man­tics and be­hav­ior you re­quire al­ready built in, in­stead of re-pur­pos­ing an el­e­ment and adding an ARIA role, state or prop­erty to make it ac­ces­si­ble, then do

so.

Despite that, Radix is re­pur­pos­ing an el­e­ment and adding an ARIA role in­stead of us­ing a na­tive HTML el­e­ment.

Finally, the com­po­nent also in­cludes a hid­den but only if it’s used in­side of a el­e­ment. Weird!

This is get­ting pretty com­pli­cated to just ren­der a ra­dio but­ton. Why would you want to do this?

Styling ra­dio but­tons is hard (Wait, is it?)

My best guess is that Radix re­builds the ra­dio but­ton from scratch in or­der to make it eas­ier to style. Radio but­tons used to be dif­fi­cult to style con­sis­tently across browsers. But for sev­eral years we’ve been able to style ra­dio but­tons how­ever we want us­ing a few CSS tools:

ap­pear­ance: none re­moves the ra­dio but­ton’s de­fault styling al­low­ing us to

do what­ever we want.

We can use the ::before pseudo-el­e­ment to ren­der a dot” in­side of the

un­styled ra­dio but­ton.

We can use the :checked pseudo-class to show and hide that dot de­pend­ing on

whether the ra­dio but­ton is checked.

in­put[type=“ra­dio”] {

/* Disable the browser’s de­fault ra­dio but­ton styles */

ap­pear­ance: none;

mar­gin: 0;

/* Recreate the cir­cle con­tainer */

bor­der: 1px solid black;

back­ground: white;

bor­der-ra­dius: 50%;

/* Center our dot in the con­tainer */

dis­play: in­line-grid;

place-con­tent: cen­ter;

/* Use a pseudo-el­e­ment to dis­play our dot” */

&::before {

con­tent: ”;

width: 0.75rem;

height: 0.75rem;

bor­der-ra­dius: 50%;

/* And dis­play it when the ra­dio but­ton is checked */

&:checked::before {

back­ground: black;

This does­n’t re­quire any de­pen­den­cies, JavaScript, or ARIA roles. It’s just an in­put el­e­ment with some styles. (You can do the same thing with Tailwind if that’s your jam.)

It does re­quire knowl­edge of CSS but this is­n’t some ar­cane se­cret.

Googling how to style a ra­dio but­ton”

shows sev­eral blog posts ex­plain­ing these tech­niques. You may say this is a lot of CSS, but the Shadcn com­po­nent we were us­ing had 30 Tailwind classes!

I’m not try­ing to con­vince you to write your own com­po­nent styles

Look, I get it. You’ve got a lot go­ing on. You’re not big on CSS. You just want to grab some pre­built com­po­nents so you can fo­cus on the ac­tual prob­lem you’re solv­ing.

I to­tally un­der­stand why peo­ple reach for com­po­nent li­braries like Shadcn and I don’t blame them at all. But I wish these com­po­nent li­braries would keep things sim­ple and reuse the built-in browser el­e­ments where pos­si­ble.

Web de­vel­op­ment is hard. There’s in­her­ent com­plex­ity in build­ing qual­ity sites that solve prob­lems and work well across a wide range of de­vices and browsers.

But some things don’t have to be hard. Browsers make things like ra­dio but­tons easy. Let’s not over­com­pli­cate it.

To un­der­stand how our ra­dio but­tons work I need to un­der­stand two sep­a­rate com­po­nent li­braries and hun­dreds of lines of React.

Website vis­i­tors need to wait for JavaScript to load, parse, and run in or­der to be able to tog­gle a ra­dio but­ton. (In my test­ing, just adding these com­po­nents added sev­eral KB of JS to a ba­sic app.)

Why am I mak­ing such a big deal out of this? It’s just a ra­dio but­ton.

But these small de­ci­sions add up to more com­plex­ity, more cog­ni­tive load, more bugs, and worse web­site per­for­mance.

We have strayed so far from the light

Look at it. It’s beau­ti­ful:

...

Read the original on paulmakeswebsites.com »

3 467 shares, 33 trendiness

America Is Slow-Walking Into a Polymarket Disaster

For the past week, I’ve found my­self play­ing the same 23-second CNN clip on re­peat. I’ve watched it in bed, dur­ing my com­mute to work, at the of­fice, mid­way through mak­ing car­rot soup, and while brush­ing my teeth. In the video, Harry Enten, the net­work’s chief data an­a­lyst, stares into the cam­era and breath­lessly tells his au­di­ence about the gam­bling odds that Donald Trump will buy any of Greenland. The peo­ple who are putting their money where their mouth is—they are ab­solutely tak­ing this se­ri­ously,” Enten says. He taps the gi­ant touch screen be­hind him and pulls up a made-for-TV graphic: Based on how peo­ple were bet­ting on­line at the time, there was a 36 per­cent chance that the pres­i­dent would an­nex Greenland. Whoa, way up there!” Enten yells, slap­ping his hands to­gether. My good­ness gra­cious!” The ticker at the bot­tom of the screen speeds through other odds: Will Gavin Newsom win the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion? 19 per­cent chance. Will Viktor Orbán be out as the leader of Hungary be­fore the end of the year? 48 per­cent chance.

These odds were pulled from Kalshi, which hi­lar­i­ously claims not to be a gam­bling plat­form: It’s a prediction mar­ket.” People go to sites such as Kalshi and Polymarket—another big pre­dic­tion mar­ket—in or­der to put money down on a given news event. Nobody would bet on some­thing that they did­n’t be­lieve would hap­pen, the think­ing goes, and so the mar­kets are meant to fore­cast the like­li­hood of a given out­come.

Listen: Prediction mar­kets and the suckerification” cri­sis, with Max Read

Prediction mar­kets let you wa­ger on ba­si­cally any­thing. Will Elon Musk fa­ther an­other baby by June 30? Will Jesus re­turn this year? Will Israel strike Gaza to­mor­row? Will the longevity guru Bryan Johnson’s next func­tional sperm count be greater than 20.0 M/ejac”? These sites have re­cently boomed in pop­u­lar­ity—par­tic­u­larly among ter­mi­nally on­line young men who trade meme stocks and siphon from their 401(k)s to buy up bit­coin. But now pre­dic­tion mar­kets are creep­ing into the main­stream. CNN an­nounced a deal with Kalshi last month to in­te­grate the site’s data into its broad­casts, which has led to bet­ting odds show­ing up in seg­ments about Democrats pos­si­bly re­tak­ing the House, credit-card in­ter­est rates, and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. At least twice in the past two weeks, Enten has told view­ers about the value of data from peo­ple who are putting their money where their mouth is.”

On January 7, the me­dia gi­ant Dow Jones an­nounced its own col­lab­o­ra­tion with Polymarket and said that it will be­gin in­te­grat­ing the site’s odds across its pub­li­ca­tions, in­clud­ing The Wall Street Journal. CNBC has a pre­dic­tion-mar­ket deal, as does Yahoo Finance, Sports Illustrated, and Time. Last week, MoviePass an­nounced that it will be­gin test­ing a bet­ting plat­form. On Sunday, the Golden Globes fea­tured Polymarket’s fore­casts through­out the broad­cast—be­cause ap­par­ently Americans wanted to know whether on­line gam­blers fa­vored Amy Poehler or Dax Shepard to win Best Podcast.

Media is a ruth­less, un­sta­ble busi­ness, and rev­enue streams are dry­ing up; if you squint, you can see why CNN or Dow Jones might sign a con­tract that, af­ter all, pro­vides its au­di­ence with some kind of data. On air, Enten cites Kalshi odds along­side Gallup polls and Google searches—what’s the dif­fer­ence? The data fea­tured through our part­ner­ship with Kalshi is just one of many sources used to pro­vide con­text around the sto­ries or top­ics we are cov­er­ing and has no im­pact on ed­i­to­r­ial judg­ment,” Brian Poliakoff, a CNN spokesper­son, told me in a state­ment. Nolly Evans, the Journal’s dig­i­tal gen­eral man­ager, told me that Polymarket pro­vides the news­pa­per’s jour­nal­ists with another way to quan­tify col­lec­tive ex­pec­ta­tions—es­pe­cially around fi­nan­cial or geopo­lit­i­cal events.” In an email, Jack Suh, a Kalshi spokesper­son, told me that the com­pa­ny’s part­ner­ships are de­signed to in­form the pub­lic, not to en­cour­age more trad­ing. Polymarket de­clined to com­ment.

The prob­lem is that pre­dic­tion mar­kets are ush­er­ing in a world in which news be­comes as much about gam­bling as about the event it­self. This kind of thing has al­ready hap­pened to sports, where the lan­guage of parlays” and covering the spread” has in­fil­trated every inch of com­men­tary. ESPN part­ners with DraftKings to bring its odds to SportsCenter and Monday Night Football; CBS Sports has a bet­ting ver­ti­cal; FanDuel runs its own stream­ing net­work. But the stakes of Greenland’s fu­ture are more con­se­quen­tial than the NFL play­offs.

The more that pre­dic­tion mar­kets are treated like news, es­pe­cially head­ing into an­other elec­tion, the more every dip and swing in the odds may end up wildly mis­lead­ing peo­ple about what might hap­pen, or in­flu­enc­ing what hap­pens in the real world. Yet it’s un­clear whether these sites are mean­ing­ful pre­dic­tors of any­thing. After the Golden Globes, Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan ex­cit­edly posted that his site had cor­rectly pre­dicted 26 of 28 win­ners, which seems im­pres­sive—but Hollywood awards shows are gen­er­ally pre­dictable. One re­cent study found that Polymarket’s fore­casts in the weeks be­fore the 2024 elec­tion were not much bet­ter than chance.

These mar­kets are also ma­nip­u­la­ble. In 2012, one bet­tor on the now-de­funct pre­dic­tion mar­ket Intrade placed a se­ries of huge wa­gers on Mitt Romney in the two weeks pre­ced­ing the elec­tion, gen­er­at­ing a bet­ting line in­dica­tive of a tight race. The bet­tor did not seem mo­ti­vated by fi­nan­cial gain, ac­cord­ing to two re­searchers who ex­am­ined the trades. More plau­si­bly, this trader could have been at­tempt­ing to ma­nip­u­late be­liefs about the odds of vic­tory in an at­tempt to boost fundrais­ing, cam­paign morale, and turnout,” they wrote. The trader lost at least $4 mil­lion but might have shaped me­dia at­ten­tion of the race for less than the price of a prime-time ad, they con­cluded.

A bil­lion­aire con­gres­sional can­di­date can’t just send a check to Quinnipiac University and sud­denly find him­self as the polling front-run­ner, but he can place enor­mous Polymarket bets on him­self that move the odds in his fa­vor. Or con­sider this hy­po­thet­i­cal laid out by the Stanford po­lit­i­cal sci­en­tist Andrew Hall: What if, a month be­fore the 2028 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, the race is dead even be­tween J. D. Vance and Mark Cuban? Inexplicably, Vance’s odds of win­ning surge on Kalshi, pos­si­bly linked to shady over­seas bets. CNN airs seg­ment af­ter seg­ment about the spike, turn­ing it into an all-con­sum­ing na­tional news story. Democrats and Republicans point fin­gers at each other, and no one knows what’s re­ally go­ing on. Such a sce­nario is plausible—maybe even likely—in the com­ing years,” Hall writes. It does­n’t help that the Trump Media and Technology Group, the owner of the pres­i­den­t’s so­cial-me­dia plat­form, Truth Social, is set to launch its own plat­form, Truth Predict. (Donald Trump Jr. is an ad­viser to both Kalshi and Polymarket.)

The irony of pre­dic­tion mar­kets is that they are sup­posed to be a more trust­wor­thy way of glean­ing the fu­ture than in­ter­net click­bait and half-baked pun­ditry, but they risk shred­ding what­ever shared trust we still have left. The sus­pi­ciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right be­fore the cap­ture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phe­nom­e­nal luck that net­ted a roughly $400,000 pay­out. Or maybe some­one with in­side in­for­ma­tion was look­ing for easy money. Last week, when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt abruptly ended her brief­ing af­ter 64 min­utes and 30 sec­onds, many traders were out­raged, be­cause they had pre­dicted (with 98 per­cent odds) that the brief­ing would run past 65 min­utes. Some sus­pected, with no ev­i­dence, that Leavitt had de­lib­er­ately stopped be­fore the 65-minute mark to turn a profit. (When I asked the White House about this, the spokesper­son Davis Ingle told me in a state­ment, This is a 100% Fake News nar­ra­tive.”)

Read: The Polymarket bets on Maduro are a warn­ing

Unintentionally or not, this is what hap­pens when me­dia out­lets nor­mal­ize treat­ing every piece of news and en­ter­tain­ment as some­thing to wa­ger on. As Tarek Mansour, Kalshi’s CEO, has said, his long-term goal is to financialize every­thing and cre­ate a trad­able as­set out of any dif­fer­ence in opin­ion.” (Kalshi means everything” in Arabic.) What could go wrong? As one vi­ral post on X re­cently put it, Got a buddy who is pray­ing for world war 3 so he can win $390 on Polymarket.” It’s a joke. I think.

...

Read the original on www.theatlantic.com »

4 437 shares, 17 trendiness

Porsche delivers 279,449 sports cars to customers in 2025

With a bal­anced sales struc­ture across in­di­vid­ual mar­kets, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Stuttgart, de­liv­ered a to­tal of 279,449 cars to cus­tomers around the world in 2025. The fig­ure was 310,718 for the pre­vi­ous year, rep­re­sent­ing a de­cline of 10 per cent. Porsche’s top pri­or­ity re­mains a value-ori­ented de­riv­a­tive mix.

With a bal­anced sales struc­ture across in­di­vid­ual mar­kets, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Stuttgart, de­liv­ered a to­tal of 279,449 cars to cus­tomers around the world in 2025. The fig­ure was 310,718 for the pre­vi­ous year, rep­re­sent­ing a de­cline of 10 per cent. Porsche’s top pri­or­ity re­mains a value-ori­ented de­riv­a­tive mix.

After sev­eral record years, our de­liv­er­ies in 2025 were be­low the pre­vi­ous year’s level. This de­vel­op­ment is in line with our ex­pec­ta­tions and is due to sup­ply gaps for the 718 and Macan com­bus­tion-en­gined mod­els, the con­tin­u­ing weaker de­mand for ex­clu­sive prod­ucts in China, and our value-ori­ented sup­ply man­age­ment,” says Matthias Becker, Member of the Executive Board for Sales and Marketing at Porsche AG. In 2025, we de­lighted our cus­tomers with out­stand­ing cars — such as the 911 Turbo S with its T-Hybrid drive sys­tem.” The re­sponse to the launch of the Cayenne Electric at the end of 2025 also shows, Becker adds, that Porsche is meet­ing cus­tomer ex­pec­ta­tions with its in­no­v­a­tive and high-per­for­mance prod­ucts.

With 84,328 de­liv­er­ies, the Macan was the best-sell­ing model line. North America re­mains the largest sales re­gion with 86,229 de­liv­er­ies — a fig­ure that is in line with the pre­vi­ous year.

Porsche repo­si­tioned it­self in 2025 and made for­ward-look­ing strate­gic prod­uct de­ci­sions. The de­liv­ery mix in 2025 un­der­scores that the sports car man­u­fac­turer is con­sis­tently re­spond­ing to global cus­tomer pref­er­ences by ex­pand­ing its dri­ve­train strat­egy to of­fer com­bus­tion-en­gined, plug-in hy­brid, and fully elec­tric cars. In 2025, 34.4 per cent of Porsche cars de­liv­ered world­wide were elec­tri­fied (+7.4 per­cent­age points), with 22.2 per cent be­ing fully elec­tric and 12.1 per cent be­ing plug-in hy­brids. This puts the global share of fully elec­tric ve­hi­cles at the up­per end of the tar­get range of 20 to 22 per cent for 2025. In Europe, for the first time, more elec­tri­fied cars were de­liv­ered than pure com­bus­tion-en­gined mod­els (57.9 per cent elec­tri­fi­ca­tion share), with every third car be­ing fully elec­tric. Among the Panamera and Cayenne mod­els, plug-in hy­brid de­riv­a­tives dom­i­nate the European de­liv­ery fig­ures. At the same time, the com­bus­tion-en­gined and T-Hybrid 911 set a new bench­mark with 51,583 de­liv­er­ies world­wide.

With 86,229 de­liv­er­ies, North America re­mains the largest sales re­gion, as it was the year prior. After record de­liv­er­ies in 2024, the Overseas and Emerging Markets also largely main­tained its pre­vi­ous-year lev­els, with 54,974 cars de­liv­ered (-1 per cent). In Europe (excluding Germany), Porsche de­liv­ered 66,340 cars by the end of the year, down 13 per cent year-on-year. In the German home mar­ket, 29,968 cus­tomers took de­liv­ery of new cars — a de­cline of 16 per cent. Reasons for the de­crease in both re­gions in­clude sup­ply gaps for the com­bus­tion-en­gined 718 and Macan mod­els due to EU cy­ber­se­cu­rity reg­u­la­tions.

In China, 41,938 cars were de­liv­ered to cus­tomers (-26 per cent). Key rea­sons for the de­cline re­main chal­leng­ing mar­ket con­di­tions, es­pe­cially in the lux­ury seg­ment, as well as in­tense com­pe­ti­tion in the Chinese mar­ket, par­tic­u­larly for fully elec­tric mod­els. Porsche con­tin­ues to fo­cus on value-ori­ented sales.

Deliveries of the Macan to­taled 84,328 units (+2 per cent), with fully elec­tric ver­sions ac­count­ing for over half at 45,367 ve­hi­cles. In most mar­kets out­side the EU, the com­bus­tion-en­gined Macan con­tin­ues to be of­fered, with 38,961 of these be­ing de­liv­ered. Some 27,701 Panamera mod­els were de­liv­ered by the end of December (-6 per cent).

The 911 sports car icon recorded 51,583 de­liv­er­ies by year-end (+1 per cent), set­ting an­other de­liv­ery record. The 718 Boxster and 718 Cayman to­taled 18,612 de­liv­er­ies, down 21 per cent from the pre­vi­ous year due to the model line’s phase-out. Production ended in October 2025.

The Taycan ac­counted for 16,339 de­liv­er­ies (-22 per cent), mainly due to the slow­down in the adop­tion of elec­tro­mo­bil­ity. The keys to 80,886 Cayenne mod­els were handed to cus­tomers in 2025, a de­cline of 21 per cent, partly due to catch-up ef­fects the pre­vi­ous year. The new fully elec­tric Cayenne cel­e­brated its world pre­miere in November, with the first mar­kets to of­fer the model be­gin­ning to de­liver to cus­tomers from this spring. It will be of­fered along­side com­bus­tion-en­gined and plug-in hy­brid ver­sions of the Cayenne.

Looking ahead, Matthias Becker says: In 2026, we have a clear fo­cus; we want to man­age de­mand and sup­ply ac­cord­ing to our value over vol­ume’ strat­egy. At the same time, we are plan­ning our vol­umes for 2026 re­al­is­ti­cally, con­sid­er­ing the pro­duc­tion phase-out of the com­bus­tion-en­gined 718 and Macan mod­els.” In par­al­lel, Porsche is con­sis­tently in­vest­ing in its three-pronged pow­er­train strat­egy and will con­tinue to in­spire cus­tomers with unique sports cars in 2026. An im­por­tant com­po­nent is the ex­pan­sion of the brand’s cus­tomiza­tion of­fer­ing — via both the Exclusive Manufaktur and Sonderwunsch pro­gram. In do­ing so, the com­pany is re­spond­ing to cus­tomers’ ever-in­creas­ing de­sire for in­di­vid­u­al­iza­tion.

All amounts are in­di­vid­u­ally rounded to the near­est cent; this may re­sult in mi­nor dis­crep­an­cies when summed.

This press re­lease con­tains for­ward-look­ing state­ments and in­for­ma­tion on the cur­rently ex­pected busi­ness de­vel­op­ment of Porsche AG. These state­ments are sub­ject to risks and un­cer­tain­ties. They are based on as­sump­tions about the de­vel­op­ment of eco­nomic, po­lit­i­cal and le­gal con­di­tions in in­di­vid­ual coun­tries, eco­nomic re­gions and mar­kets, in par­tic­u­lar for the au­to­mo­tive in­dus­try, which we have made based on the in­for­ma­tion avail­able to us and which we con­sider to be re­al­is­tic at the time of pub­li­ca­tion. If any of these or other risks ma­te­ri­alise, or if the as­sump­tions un­der­ly­ing these state­ments prove in­cor­rect, the ac­tual re­sults could be sig­nif­i­cantly dif­fer­ent from those ex­pressed or im­plied by such state­ments. Forward-looking state­ments in this pre­sen­ta­tion are based solely on the in­for­ma­tion per­tain­ing on the day of pub­li­ca­tion.

These for­ward-look­ing state­ments will not be up­dated later. Such state­ments are valid on the day of pub­li­ca­tion and may be over­taken by later events.

This in­for­ma­tion does not con­sti­tute an of­fer to ex­change or sell or of­fer to ex­change or pur­chase se­cu­ri­ties.

...

Read the original on newsroom.porsche.com »

5 421 shares, 41 trendiness

I'm addicted to being useful

When I get to­gether with my friends in the in­dus­try, I feel a lit­tle guilty about how much I love my job. This is a tough time to be a soft­ware en­gi­neer. The job was less stress­ful in the late 2010s than it is now, and I sym­pa­thize with any­one who is up­set about the change. There are a lot of ob­jec­tive rea­sons to feel bad about work. But de­spite all that, I’m still hav­ing a blast. I en­joy pulling to­gether pro­jects, fig­ur­ing out dif­fi­cult bugs, and writ­ing code in gen­eral. I like spend­ing time with com­put­ers. But what I re­ally love is be­ing use­ful.

The main char­ac­ter in Gogol’s short story The Overcoat is a man called Akaky Akaievich. Akaky’s job is ob­jec­tively ter­ri­ble: he’s stuck in a dead-end copy­ist role, be­ing paid very lit­tle, with col­leagues who don’t re­spect him. Still, he loves his work, to the point that if he has no work to take home with him, he does some recre­ational copy­ing just for his own sake. Akaky is a dys­func­tional per­son. But his dys­func­tion makes him a per­fect fit for his job.

It’s hard for me to see a prob­lem and not solve it. This is es­pe­cially true if I’m the only per­son (or one of a very few peo­ple) who could solve it, or if some­body is ask­ing for my help. I feel an al­most phys­i­cal dis­com­fort about it, and a cor­re­spond­ing re­lief and sat­is­fac­tion when I do go and solve the prob­lem. The work of a soft­ware en­gi­neer - or at least my work as a staff soft­ware en­gi­neer - is per­fectly tai­lored to this ten­dency. Every day peo­ple rely on me to solve a se­ries of tech­ni­cal prob­lems.

In other words, like Akaky Akaievich, I don’t mind the ways in which my job is dys­func­tional, be­cause it matches the ways in which I my­self am dys­func­tional: specif­i­cally, my ad­dic­tion to be­ing use­ful. (Of course, it helps that my work­ing con­di­tions are over­all much bet­ter than Akaky’s). I’m kind of like a work­ing dog, in a way. Working dogs get re­warded with treats, but they don’t do it for the treats. They do it for the work it­self, which is in­her­ently sat­is­fy­ing.

This is­n’t true of all soft­ware en­gi­neers. But it’s cer­tainly true of many I’ve met: if not an ad­dic­tion to be­ing use­ful, then they’re dri­ven by an ad­dic­tion to solv­ing puz­zles, or to the com­plete con­trol over your work prod­uct that you only re­ally get in soft­ware or math­e­mat­ics. If they weren’t work­ing as a soft­ware en­gi­neer, they would be get­ting re­ally into Factorio, or cross­words, or tyran­ni­cally mod­er­at­ing some in­ter­net com­mu­nity.

A lot of the ad­vice I give about work­ing a soft­ware en­gi­neer­ing job is re­ally about how I’ve shaped my need to be use­ful in a way that de­liv­ers ma­te­r­ial re­wards, and how I try to avoid the pit­falls of such a need. For in­stance, Protecting your time from preda­tors in large tech com­pa­nies is about how some peo­ple in tech com­pa­nies will iden­tify peo­ple like me and wring us out in ways that only ben­e­fit them. Crushing JIRA tick­ets is a party trick, not a path to im­pact is about how I need to be use­ful to my man­age­ment chain, not to the ticket queue. Trying to im­press peo­ple you don’t re­spect is about how I cope with the fact that I’m com­pelled to be use­ful to some peo­ple who I may not re­spect or even like.

There’s a lot of dis­cus­sion on the in­ter­net about what ought to mo­ti­vate soft­ware en­gi­neers: money and power, pro­duc­ing real value, ush­er­ing in the AI ma­chine god, and so on. But what ac­tu­ally does mo­ti­vate soft­ware en­gi­neers is of­ten more of an in­ter­nal com­pul­sion. If you’re in that cat­e­gory - as I sus­pect most of us are - then it’s worth fig­ur­ing out how you can har­ness that com­pul­sion most ef­fec­tively.

...

Read the original on www.seangoedecke.com »

6 357 shares, 17 trendiness

...

Read the original on lemdro.id »

7 278 shares, 44 trendiness

Nvidia Stock Crash Prediction

One of the ques­tions of the 2026 pre­dic­tion con­test is whether Nvidia’s

stock price will close be­low $100 on any day in 2026. At the time of writ­ing, it trades at $184 and a bit, so go­ing down to $100 would be a near halv­ing of the stock value of the high­est val­ued com­pany in the world.

It’s an in­ter­est­ing ques­tion, and it’s worth spend­ing some time on it.

If you just want the an­swer, my best pre­dic­tion is that the prob­a­bil­ity is around 10 %. I did­n’t ex­pect to get such a high an­swer, but read on to see how we can find out.

When we pre­dicted the Dow Jones in­dex cross­ing a bar­rier in 2023, we treated the in­dex as an un­bi­ased ran­dom walk. That was con­ve­nient, but we can­not do it with the Nvidia ques­tion be­cause of one ma­jor dif­fer­ence: the time scale.

Over short time spans, the volatil­i­ty1 Or noise, or vari­a­tion, or stan­dard de­vi­a­tion. of stock move­ments dom­i­nate their re­turn2 Or sig­nal, or drift, or av­er­age change.. This hap­pens be­cause noise grows with the square root of time, while sig­nal grows lin­early with time.

The plot be­low il­lus­trates an imag­i­nary amaz­ing in­vest­ment which has a yearly log-re­turn of 0.3, and a yearly volatil­ity of 0.3.3 Readers aware that stonks

go up will recog­nise this as an un­re­al­is­tic Sharpe ra­tio of 1.0. The mid­dle line fol­lows our best guess for how the in­vest­ment will grow af­ter each year, and the outer curves il­lus­trate our un­cer­tainty around the ex­act value of it.

Early on, we can see that the un­cer­tainty is much big­ger than the height to the trend line. Before a year has passed, the ex­act re­sult is de­ter­mined more by noise than by growth. Toward the end, growth has taken over and the noise has a smaller ef­fect.

One mea­sure of how much volatil­ity there is com­pared to ex­pected re­turn is the sig­nal-to-noise ra­tio. It’s com­puted as

and for the Dow Jones ques­tion, we were look­ing at a sig­nal-to-noise ra­tio of −8 dB. That is al­ready a lit­tle too high to safely as­sume it be­haves like an un­bi­ased ran­dom walk, but for a low-stakes pre­dic­tion con­test it works out.

Using re­turn data for the Nvidia stock from 2025, the sig­nal-to-noise ra­tio is −1.4 dB. Although the move­ment in this pe­riod is still dom­i­nated by noise4 Evidenced by neg­a­tive sig­nal-to-noise ra­tio., the ex­pected re­turn is still go­ing to mat­ter, and we should­n’t as­sume it be­haves like an un­bi­ased ran­dom walk.

Even if we ig­nore the prob­lem­atic sig­nal-to-noise ra­tio and pre­tend the Nvidia stock price is an un­bi­ased ran­dom walk, we’ll run into what’s per­haps the big­ger prob­lem: the the­ory of un­bi­ased ran­dom walks as­sumes con­stant volatil­ity through­out the year. The com­puter will hap­pily tell us there is a near-zero per­cent chance of the stock clos­ing un­der $100 at any point next year.

The com­puter does grant a 23 % prob­a­bil­ity that the stock price drops to $130, and that might get us think­ing. If we as­sume the stock price has dropped to $130, that tells us some­thing about the mar­ket en­vi­ron­ment we’re in. Nvidia might drop to $130 due to ran­dom chance alone, but it’s more likely to do that if we’re in a mar­ket with a higher volatil­ity than we as­sumed based on the 2025 re­turns. In such a mar­ket, a fur­ther drop to $100 is­n’t so strange any­more.

Our sim­ple ran­dom walk model does not ac­count for this. When fore­cast­ing stock prices over longer pe­ri­ods, we need a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of how the volatil­ity might change in the fu­ture.

Fortunately for us, there are peo­ple who con­tin­u­ously es­ti­mate the volatil­ity of spe­cific stock prices. They even do it in re­la­tion to bar­ri­ers like the $100 price we’re in­ter­ested in. They’re op­tions traders!

The ex­pected volatil­ity of the stock price is one of the vari­ables that go into pric­ing an op­tion. This means we can look up a December 2026 Nvidia call op­tion with a strike price of $100 in the mar­ket, see what it costs, and then re­verse the op­tion pric­ing process to get an im­plied volatil­ity out.

To do this, we first need to learn how to price an op­tion, and to do that, we need to know what an op­tion is.

In this ar­ti­cle, we’re go­ing to fo­cus on call op­tions be­cause they are more thickly traded. Assume we have an un-ex­pired Nvidia call op­tion with a strike price of $100. We can then ex­er­cise it, which means we trade in the op­tion plus the strike price for one share in the un­der­ly­ing Nvidia stock. If we did that to­day, we would earn $84, be­cause we lose the $100, but the share in Nvidia we get in ex­change is worth $184.

We don’t have to ex­er­cise the op­tion, though. If the price of Nvidia goes up to­mor­row, we would earn more from ex­er­cis­ing the op­tion to­mor­row. We can de­lay ex­er­cis­ing it right up un­til it ex­pires, when it be­comes in­valid.

If we were able to buy the $100 op­tion for less than $84, we would get free profit. The chart above tells us, how­ever, that the $100 op­tion costs $92.90, mean­ing the mar­ket ex­pects there to be a bet­ter op­por­tu­nity for ex­er­cis­ing that op­tion be­fore it ex­pires.

To keep things com­pu­ta­tion­ally sim­ple, we are go­ing to use a bi­no­mial model for the price of the un­der­ly­ing Nvidia stock. We don’t know the daily volatil­ity, so we’ll keep that as a vari­able we call \(\sigma\). We will pre­tend that each day, the Nvidia stock price can ei­ther grow with a fac­tor of \(e^\sigma\) or shrink with a fac­tor of \(e^{-\sigma}\).5 This is a geo­met­ric bi­no­mial walk. We could trans­form every­thing in the rea­son­ing be­low with the log­a­rithm and get an ad­di­tive walk in log-re­turns.

Thus, on day zero, the Nvidia stock trades for $184. On day one, it can take one of two val­ues:

\(184e^\sigma\) be­cause it went up, or

\(184e^{-\sigma}\) be­cause it went down.

On day two, it can have one of three val­ues:

\(184e^{2\sigma}\) (went up both in the first and sec­ond day),

\(184e^{\sigma - \sigma} = 184\) (went up and then down, or vice versa), or

\(184e^{-2\sigma}\) (went down both days).

If it’s eas­ier, we can vi­su­alise this as a tree. Each day, the stock price branches into two pos­si­bil­i­ties, one where it rises, and one where it goes down. In the graph be­low, each col­umn of bub­bles rep­re­sents the clos­ing value for a day.

This looks like a very crude ap­prox­i­ma­tion, but it ac­tu­ally works if the time steps are fine-grained enough. The un­cer­tain­ties in­volved in some of the other es­ti­ma­tions we’ll do dwarf the in­ac­cu­ra­cies in­tro­duced by this model.6 Even for fairly se­ri­ous use, I would­n’t be un­happy with daily time steps when the analy­sis goes a year out.

It is im­por­tant to keep in mind that the spe­cific num­bers in the bub­bles de­pend on which num­ber we se­lected for the daily volatil­ity \(\sigma\). Any con­clu­sion we draw from this tree is a func­tion of the spe­cific \(\sigma\) cho­sen to con­struct the tree.

When we have cho­sen an ini­tial \(\sigma\) and con­structed this tree, we can price an op­tion us­ing it. Maybe we have a call op­tion ex­pir­ing on day three, with a strike price of $180. On day four, the last day, the op­tion has ex­pired, so it is worth noth­ing. We’ll put that into the tree.

We have al­ready seen what the value of the op­tion is on the day it ex­pires: it’s what we would profit from ex­er­cis­ing it. If the stock is val­ued at $191, the op­tion is worth $11, the dif­fer­ence be­tween the stock value and the strike price. On the other hand, if the stock is val­ued at $177, it is worth less than the strike price of the op­tion, so we will not ex­er­cise the op­tion, in­stead let­ting it ex­pire.

The day be­fore the ex­pi­ra­tion day is when we have the first in­ter­est­ing choice to make. We can still ex­er­cise the op­tion, with the ex­er­cise value of the op­tion cal­cu­lated the same way.

Or we could hold on to the op­tion. If we hold on to the op­tion for a day, the value of the op­tion will ei­ther go up or down, de­pend­ing on the value of the un­der­ly­ing stock price. We will com­pute a weighted av­er­age of these move­ment pos­si­bil­i­ties as

where \(V_u\) and \(V_d\) are the val­ues the op­tion will have on the next day when the un­der­ly­ing moves up or down in the tree, re­spec­tively. Then we’ll dis­count this with a safe in­ter­est rate to ac­count for the fact that by hold­ing the op­tion, we are fore­go­ing cash that could oth­er­wise be used to in­vest else­where. The gen­eral equa­tion for the hold value of the op­tion at any time be­fore the ex­pi­ra­tion day is

Let’s look specif­i­cally at the node where the stock value is $199. We’ll as­sume a safe in­ter­est rate of 3.6 % an­nu­ally, which trans­lates to 0.01 % daily.7 In the texts I’ve read, 4 % is com­monly as­sumed, but more ac­cu­rate es­ti­ma­tions can be de­rived from Treasury bills and sim­i­lar ex­tremely low-risk in­ter­est rates. The value of hold­ing on to the op­tion is, then

and now we only need to know what \(\tilde{p}\) is. That vari­able looks and be­haves a lot like a prob­a­bil­ity, but it’s not. There’s an ar­bi­trage ar­gu­ment that fixes the value of \(\tilde{p}\) to

where \(\sigma\) is the same time step volatil­ity we as­sumed when cre­at­ing the tree — in our case, 4 %. This makes \(\tilde{p} = 0.491\), and with this, we can com­pute the hold value of the op­tion when the un­der­ly­ing is $199:

The value of the op­tion at any point in time is the max­i­mum of the hold value and the ex­er­cise value. So we re­place the stock value of $199 in the tree with the op­tion value of $19.03. We per­form the same cal­cu­la­tion for the other nodes in day two.

and then we do the same for the day be­fore that, then be­fore that, etc., un­til we get to day zero.

We learn that if some­one asks us on day zero to buy a call op­tion with a strike price of $180 and ex­piry three days later, when the un­der­ly­ing stock cur­rently trades for $184, and has an ex­pected daily volatil­ity of 0.04, then we should be will­ing to pay $7.38 for that op­tion.

What’s weird is this num­ber has noth­ing to do with the prob­a­bil­ity we are as­sign­ing to up or down move­ments. Go through the cal­cu­la­tions again. We never in­volved any prob­a­bil­ity in the cal­cu­la­tion of the price. Although I won’t go through the ar­gu­ment — see Shreve’s ex­cel­lent Stochastic Calculus for

Finance8 Stochastic Calculus for Finance I: The Binomial Asset Pricing

Model; Shreve; Springer; 2005. for that — this price for the op­tion is based on what it would cost to hedge the op­tion with a port­fo­lio of safe in­vest­ments, bor­row­ing, and long or short po­si­tions in the un­der­ly­ing stock.

Even with­out go­ing through the de­tailed the­ory, we can fairly quickly ver­ify that this is in­deed how op­tions are priced. Above, we made ed­u­cated guesses as to the safe in­ter­est rate, a rea­son­able volatil­ity, etc. We cal­cu­lated with a spot price of $184, a strike price of $180, and ex­piry three days out. We got an op­tion price of $7.38.

At the time of writ­ing, the Nvidia stock trades at $184.94. It has op­tions that ex­pire in four days. The ones with a strike price of $180 cur­rently sell for $6.20. That’s in­cred­i­bly close, given the rough es­ti­ma­tions and the slight mis­match in du­ra­tion.9 The main in­ac­cu­racy comes from the volatil­ity we used to con­struct the tree. The ac­tual volatil­ity of the Nvidia stock on such short time pe­ri­ods and small dif­fer­ences in price is lower.

When we con­structed the tree above, we as­sumed a daily volatil­ity of 4 %. If we write code that takes the volatil­ity as a pa­ra­me­ter and com­putes the op­tion price for that volatil­ity, we can try var­i­ous volatil­i­ties un­til we find one where our price matches the mar­ket price for that op­tion.

We write the fol­low­ing code to per­form the price cal­cu­la­tion faster than we can do it man­u­ally.10 Note that we don’t ac­tu­ally con­struct the full bi­no­mial tree. We can com­pute the value of the un­der­ly­ing stock at any node given only its co­or­di­nates, and the op­tion value only de­pends on the next time step in a way that lets us op­ti­mise the com­pu­ta­tion with dy­namic pro­gram­ming.

im­port Control. Monad.ST

im­port Data.Foldable (forM_)

im­port qual­i­fied Data.Vector as Vector

im­port qual­i­fied Data.Vector.Mutable as Vector

– | Given the cur­rent price of the un­der­ly­ing,

– and the du­ra­tion (in days) and strike price

– of the op­tion, take a daily volatil­ity and

– com­pute the op­tion value.

op­tion_­value :: Double -> Int -> Double -> Double -> Double

op­tion_­value spot du­ra­tion strike sigma =

let

– Shorthand: u = e^σ

u = exp sigma

– Shorthand: d = e^(−σ)

d = exp (negate sigma)

– Assuming yearly safe in­ter­est of 4 %

– this is the weight­ing fac­tor tilde-p.

p = (exp 0.00016 - d) / (u - d)

– The value of the un­der­ly­ing stock at

– day t, node i.

s t i = spot * u^i * d^(t-i)

– The ex­er­cise value of the op­tion de­pends

– only on the strike and the price of the

– un­der­ly­ing stock.

v_e t i = max 0 (s t i - strike)

– The hold value of the op­tion de­pends on

– the two pos­si­ble fu­ture val­ues of the

– op­tion v_d and v_u.

v_h v_d v_u =

exp (negate 0.00016)

* (p * v_u + (1-p) * v_d)

in

runST $ do

– Create a mu­ta­ble vec­tor.

nodes

Vector.write nodes i (v_e du­ra­tion i)

– Walk the tree back­wards from the day

– be­fore ex­pi­ra­tion.

forM_ (reverse [0 .. du­ra­tion - 1]) $ \t -> do

– For each node, cal­cu­late hold value

– based on op­tion value in the next

– time step (which was just cal­cu­lated)

– in the it­er­a­tion be­fore.

forM_ [0 .. t] $ \i -> do

v_d

Here we are valu­ing a 31-day call op­tion for Nvidia, with a strike price of $170. The mar­ket price is $18.68, but our code re­turns $24.74. This means our guess for the im­plied daily volatil­ity of 4 % is too high. If we try var­i­ous val­ues for the volatil­ity, we’ll even­tu­ally find that 2.2 % leads to an op­tion price of $18.53, which is fairly close to the mar­ket price. This daily volatil­ity cor­re­sponds to a yearly volatil­ity of 35 %. If we look up other peo­ple’s cal­cu­la­tions for the 30-day at-the-money im­plied volatil­ity of the Nvidia stock, we’ll find they’re at some­thing like 36 %. Definitely close enough.

For an­swer­ing the ques­tion about Nvidia drop­ping be­low $100, we don’t want the 30-day at-the-money volatil­ity, though, but the 340-day far out-of-the-money volatil­ity.

The 340-day $100 strike call op­tions sell for $92.90 in the mar­ket. To get that price we need to feed our model a daily volatil­ity of 3.1 %. In other words, the 340-day $100 strike call op­tions im­ply a daily volatil­ity of 3.1 %. Because op­tions so far out of the money are more thinly traded, we might want to con­firm this volatil­ity by com­put­ing it for other op­tions with nearby strike prices.

We ex­pect the im­plied volatil­ity to go up as the strike price is fur­ther out of the money, which it does. It seems that 3.1 % is a rea­son­able im­plied volatil­ity for such large move­ments.

The Bank of England has pub­lished a method13 Working Paper No. 455:

...

Read the original on entropicthoughts.com »

8 248 shares, 27 trendiness

Meta's Legal Team Abandoned Its Ethical Duties

In March 1770, as Boston boiled with out­rage over the killing of five colonists by British sol­diers, John Adams did some­thing few could com­pre­hend: he vol­un­teered to de­fend the en­emy. Adams be­lieved that the very idea of lib­erty de­pended on en­sur­ing that even the re­viled had coun­sel; that a free coun­try could not ex­ist with­out an in­de­pen­dent and im­par­tial bar will­ing to de­fend the de­spised.

But Adams did not be­lieve that his charge in de­fend­ing his client was to win at all costs. Every lawyer,” he re­flected in his au­to­bi­og­ra­phy, must hold him­self re­spon­si­ble not only to his Country, but to the high­est and most in­fal­li­ble of all Tribunals for the part he should act.” The moral map Adams es­tab­lished in this case be­came a foun­da­tion for the prac­tice of law in America. Indeed, to­day’s le­gal ethics codes still speak of lawyers’ three­fold duty: to the client, to the court, and to the coun­try.

Imagine if Adams had de­cided that de­fend­ing his clients meant win­ning at all costs. Can you imag­ine Bostonians’ out­rage if Adams had, say, with­held ev­i­dence that the British sol­diers did have mur­der­ous in­tent? What would Adams’s le­gal legacy be if he’d tried not to dis­cover the truth of what hap­pened out­side the Custom House, but to sow doubt and un­cer­tainty among the peo­ple of Boston? How dif­fer­ent would our le­gal sys­tem be if the British sol­diers were ac­quit­ted not be­cause they were in­no­cent, but be­cause they had a lawyer who was will­ing to hide the truth?

Such a hy­po­thet­i­cal has be­come our re­al­ity two and a half cen­turies later, only the vic­tims are chil­dren, and its eth­i­cal cor­rup­tion and harm op­er­ate at an in­dus­trial scale. What has emerged from in­side Meta over re­cent months re­veals how vac­u­ous the char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of the lawyer’s eth­i­cal oblig­a­tions have be­come: Meta lawyers or­der­ing ev­i­dence of child ex­ploita­tion de­stroyed and re­search find­ings buried, while they hid be­hind at­tor­ney-client priv­i­lege. Meta’s lawyers do not fol­low Adams’ prece­dent, but, rather, the ex­am­ple set by Big Tobacco lawyers in the 1970s and 80s. These lawyers col­lapsed Adams’ three­fold duty into one — serve the client alone, what­ever the cost to the courts and the coun­try.

The story of this eth­i­cal ero­sion be­gins not in Menlo Park but in the to­bacco board­rooms of two gen­er­a­tions ago, when Big Tobacco at­tor­ney Ernest Pepples out­lined what he called the honesty op­tion”: ad­mit­ting that smok­ing killed peo­ple. He con­ceded this would ex­pose to­bacco com­pa­nies to cat­a­strophic li­a­bil­ity, and the com­pa­nies ul­ti­mately re­jected hon­esty in fa­vor of profit. In the decades that fol­lowed, to­bacco lawyers coun­seled doc­u­ment de­struc­tion, abused at­tor­ney-client priv­i­lege to sup­press re­search, and in­tim­i­dated sci­en­tists whose find­ings threat­ened lit­i­ga­tion de­fenses. Big Tobacco’s at­tor­neys per­fected hid­ing the truth from the American peo­ple, aban­don­ing their du­ties to the court and to the coun­try. The cost of that aban­don­ment can be mea­sured in mil­lions of lives and bil­lions of dol­lars. The cost to the pub­lic trust is in­cal­cu­la­ble.

Fast for­ward 30 years to Meta head­quar­ters where the multi-tril­lion dol­lar com­pa­ny’s at­tor­neys are fol­low­ing Big Tobacco’s play­book, aid­ing and abet­ting the com­pa­ny’s dis­re­gard for pub­lic wel­fare and chil­dren’s safety. Meta’s lead­er­ship and le­gal team have hid­den mountains of ev­i­dence,” as Jonathan Haidt and Zach Rausch put it, of di­rect and in­di­rect harms to kids and teens.

The lat­est rev­e­la­tions about Meta’s malfea­sance come from newly un­sealed court doc­u­ments. In 2020, the com­pany dis­cov­ered through its own ex­per­i­men­tal re­search — an ini­tia­tive known as Project Mercury — that when users re­duced the amount of time they spent on Facebook, their lev­els of de­pres­sion, anx­i­ety, and lone­li­ness de­creased. Meta’s lawyers buried the find­ings.

But Project Mercury, and Meta’s sup­pres­sion of its damn­ing re­search on the men­tal health ef­fects of Instagram, is only the be­gin­ning. Deeper rev­e­la­tions come from whistle­blow­ers Jason Sattizahn and Kayce Savage and their tes­ti­mony be­fore the U. S. Senate this past September. Sattizahn and Savage had been re­search­ing child ex­ploita­tion in Meta’s VR ecosys­tem, where they dis­cov­ered co­or­di­nated pe­dophile rings op­er­at­ing in­side games like Roblox. Sattizahn and Savage de­scribed an im­mer­sive ex­pe­ri­ence where chil­dren reg­u­larly en­counter what Sattizahn called the trans­mis­sion of the mo­tion and the au­dio of sex acts” from adult users — not just sex­ual words or adult content,” but the phys­i­cal ex­pe­ri­ence of adults sex­u­ally grat­i­fy­ing them­selves” while surrounding and hound­ing mi­nors,” com­plete with im­mer­sive au­dio.

Sattizahn also tes­ti­fied how, af­ter his re­search on Meta’s VR plat­form un­cov­ered chil­dren un­der the age of 10 in Germany be­ing propo­si­tioned for sex acts, nude pho­tos, and other acts that no child should ever be ex­posed to,” Meta’s in-house lawyers de­manded the era­sure of any and all ev­i­dence of this find­ing. When asked by Senator Josh Hawley how of­ten she’d wit­nessed an un­der­age user be­ing ex­posed to in­ap­pro­pri­ate sex­ual con­tent on Meta VR, Savage replied, every time I use the head­set.” The per­mis­sive­ness by the com­pany that Savage and Sattizahn tes­ti­fied to is mir­rored by the more re­cently un­sealed court doc­u­ments, which in­cluded that Meta main­tained a 17-strike pol­icy for sex traf­fick­ing ac­counts — re­mov­ing preda­tors only af­ter they were caught at­tempt­ing to traf­fic peo­ple 17 sep­a­rate times. Meta’s own in­ter­nal doc­u­ments called this thresh­old very, very, very high.”

According to Sattizahn, Meta’s le­gal de­part­ment cre­ated what he called a funnel of ma­nip­u­la­tion” in re­sponse to these iden­ti­fied risks to chil­dren, a com­pre­hen­sive sys­tem for con­trol­ling every as­pect of safety re­search. Legal rep­re­sen­ta­tives em­bed­ded in re­search teams de­manded de­struc­tion of find­ings deemed too sen­si­tive. Researchers were for­bid­den to use words like illegal” or non-compliant” even when plainly ap­plic­a­ble. Sattizahn and Savage’s tes­ti­mony is com­ple­mented by in­ter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­tions, now pub­lic, show­ing that Meta em­ploy­ees wor­ried they were be­hav­ing like to­bacco ex­ec­u­tives doing re­search and know­ing cigs were bad and then keep­ing that info to them­selves.”

On October 23, 2025, a judge in a sep­a­rate case val­i­dated what the whistle­blow­ers and court doc­u­ments had de­scribed. Invoking the rarely used crime-fraud ex­cep­tion to pierce Meta’s at­tor­ney-client priv­i­lege, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Yvonne Williams found Meta’s lawyers had coached re­searchers to hide, block, and san­i­tize stud­ies on teen men­tal-health harm in or­der to shield the com­pany from li­a­bil­ity. Judge Williams de­ter­mined there was prob­a­ble cause that these com­mu­ni­ca­tions were fundamentally in­con­sis­tent with the ba­sic premises of the ad­ver­sary sys­tem.”

Attorney-client priv­i­lege was orig­i­nally meant to pro­tect can­dor in ser­vice of truth, but in Meta’s hands it has be­come a means of hid­ing the truth — a trans­for­ma­tion that marks how far the le­gal pro­fes­sion has drifted. John Adams be­lieved that truth was the lawyer’s surest refuge, the one place where all three du­ties could co­ex­ist. He wrote in his au­to­bi­og­ra­phy that his British client must there­fore ex­pect from me no Art or Address, No Sophistry or Prevarication in such a Cause; nor any thing more than Fact, Evidence and Law would jus­tify.” When lawyers aban­don fact, ev­i­dence, and law, and turn their craft to­ward sup­pres­sion in­stead, they cor­rode the foun­da­tion of pub­lic trust on which the en­tire le­gal sys­tem de­pends. Judge Williams’ rul­ing is thus more than a pro­ce­dural re­buke; it is a re­minder that the law’s le­git­i­macy sur­vives only so long as truth re­mains dis­cov­er­able.

Yet Judge Williams’ rul­ing alone can­not stop Meta’s in­sti­tu­tional mis­deeds. Meta has thrived in an en­vi­ron­ment of pas­siv­ity, thanks to lawyers who refuse to re­port eth­i­cal mis­con­duct, bar as­so­ci­a­tions that de­cline to in­ves­ti­gate de­spite court find­ings of prob­a­ble cause and reams of ev­i­dence in the pub­lic do­main, leg­is­la­tors who pre­fer the­ater to leg­is­la­tion, and in­flu­en­tial busi­ness lead­ers from other sec­tors who re­main silent by­standers as tech lawyers re­make the le­gal sys­tem into one that re­wards grift and ex­ploita­tion rather than en­ter­prise and in­no­va­tion.

Impunity is not in­evitable. State bar as­so­ci­a­tions should open in­ves­ti­ga­tions to­mor­row and re­voke rec­i­proc­ity to Meta at­tor­neys li­censed in other ju­ris­dic­tions. The ev­i­dence is pub­lic: tes­ti­mony un­der oath, a judge’s find­ing of prob­a­ble cause, court doc­u­ments that speak for them­selves. Investigations for po­ten­tial dis­bar­ment should be­gin with se­nior lead­ers like Jennifer Newstead and Joel Kaplan, Meta’s re­spec­tive heads of le­gal and pub­lic pol­icy who bear re­spon­si­bil­ity un­der ethics rules for at­tor­neys work­ing un­der them.

Junior lawyers at the com­pany who may have wit­nessed this sys­tem­atic ob­struc­tion and failed to re­port it should also be scru­ti­nized, as the rules of pro­fes­sional re­spon­si­bil­ity gen­er­ally re­quire lawyers to re­port pro­fes­sional mis­con­duct by an­other lawyer that raises a sub­stan­tial ques­tion as to that lawyer’s hon­esty, trust­wor­thi­ness or fit­ness.” That none re­ported what they wit­nessed de­mands in­ves­ti­ga­tion at the very least. A stint in Meta’s le­gal de­part­ment on a lawyer’s re­sume should be con­sid­ered dis­qual­i­fy­ing by law firms and other fu­ture em­ploy­ers, mak­ing that lawyer un­hire­able if they can­not show that they spoke up about, or were oth­er­wise un­aware of, the sup­pres­sion of ev­i­dence or harm. The fear of real con­se­quences for play­ing a role in per­pe­trat­ing such mas­sive harm to American chil­dren should force Meta’s at­tor­neys to ei­ther leave the com­pany or to be­gin to stand up for what’s right.

Congress and state leg­is­la­tures should also ex­am­ine whether le­gal ethics rules re­quire re­form: whether at­tor­ney-client priv­i­lege has been ex­tended too far when it shields cor­po­ra­tions’ most ques­tion­able ac­tiv­i­ties, and whether ben­e­fits of en­cour­ag­ing can­did con­sul­ta­tions with clients jus­tify costs of fa­cil­i­tat­ing cover-ups. Meta is not the only bad ac­tor here, but it did get caught in the most egre­gious be­hav­ior. The un­sealed court fil­ings demon­strate sim­i­lar be­hav­ior by Snap and by Google. OpenAI’s lawyers accidentally” erased ev­i­dence com­piled by The New York Times’s at­tor­neys in its copy­right law­suit against the com­pany. Judges have caught at­tor­neys from Google and Apple with­hold­ing or de­stroy­ing doc­u­ments rel­e­vant to anti-trust tri­als. As Stuart Taylor in The Atlantic wrote of the to­bacco lawyers two decades ago, we should in­vite the pro­fes­sion’s lead­ers to explain why lawyers should re­main free to hide ev­i­dence of cor­po­rate wrong­do­ing, mis­lead courts, and man­gle the truth.”

The ma­chin­ery for ac­count­abil­ity ex­ists. State bars can act to­mor­row to in­ves­ti­gate and sus­pend Meta’s at­tor­neys. Judges can con­tinue pierc­ing false priv­i­lege claims and is­sue sanc­tions against bad-faith ad­vo­cates. Legislators can de­mand bar as­so­ci­a­tions jus­tify their con­tin­ued self-reg­u­la­tion and re­form the rules of at­tor­ney-client priv­i­lege for cor­po­ra­tions. Law firms can fire clients that ask them to vi­o­late their broader du­ties to the coun­try and its courts. Importantly, hold­ing cor­rupt, un­eth­i­cal lawyers ac­count­able for en­abling harms to chil­dren does not mean that we sac­ri­fice the foun­da­tional tenet of the American le­gal sys­tem that John Adams cham­pi­oned: that even those we may de­spise — the red­coat sol­dier then, the bil­lion­aire and his ex­ploita­tive em­pires now — will re­main en­ti­tled to coun­sel who will zeal­ously de­fend them, pro­vided they fol­low the rules that the rest of us do.

Meta’s at­tor­neys have for­got­ten that the law’s le­git­i­macy de­rives from the in­tegrity of those who prac­tice it. For that rea­son, ac­count­abil­ity for fail­ing to fol­low the rules of pro­fes­sional ethics can­not be left in the hands of those who would per­vert the prin­ci­ples at the heart of their pro­fes­sion so ca­su­ally. Instead, it’s up to the rest of us — those who still be­lieve law should serve jus­tice — to en­sure Meta’s at­tor­neys are re­minded of their oblig­a­tions through real, ma­te­r­ial, swift, in­di­vid­ual con­se­quences. They are the ar­chi­tects of a sys­tem that harms chil­dren at an in­dus­trial scale, and every Meta lawyer who par­tic­i­pated or stood by silently shares the moral stain of what the com­pany has per­pe­trated.

Holding Meta ac­count­able in­cludes hold­ing its lawyers ac­count­able; the harm the com­pany in­flicts on young peo­ple could not ex­ist with­out lawyers will­ing to en­able it. Defrocking those lawyers could be what ends the im­punity for Mark Zuckerberg, his lieu­tenants, and his em­pire.

The truth will out for Meta’s lawyers — even­tu­ally — as hap­pened with Big Tobacco’s, but the stakes reach be­yond any sin­gle com­pa­ny’s malfea­sance or any one at­tor­ney’s lack of con­science. Just as to­bacco lawyers’ cor­rup­tion poi­soned pub­lic trust, Meta’s at­tor­neys threaten to com­plete the trans­for­ma­tion of law into a ser­vice avail­able only to those wealthy enough to cor­rupt it and shame­less enough to ig­nore the wreck­age. Whether courts can func­tion, whether Americans be­lieve law serves jus­tice rather than a sys­tem many be­lieve to be rigged, de­pends on whether those in power re­pu­di­ate this con­duct de­ci­sively, or whether they con­tinue, through their in­ac­tion, to tac­itly en­dorse it.

...

Read the original on www.afterbabel.com »

9 246 shares, 26 trendiness

Running Claude Code dangerously (safely)

I’ve been us­ing Claude Code more and more re­cently. At some point I re­al­ized that rather than do some­thing else un­til it fin­ishes, I would con­stantly check on it to see if it was ask­ing for yet an­other per­mis­sion, which felt like it was miss­ing the point of hav­ing an agent do stuff. So I wanted to use Claude Code with the –dangerously-skip-permissions flag.

If you haven’t used it, this flag does ex­actly what it says: it lets Claude Code do what­ever it wants with­out ask­ing per­mis­sion first. No more May I in­stall this pack­age?”, Should I mod­ify this con­fig?”, Can I delete these files?”

It just… does it.

Which is great for flow since I don’t have to worry that it stopped do­ing stuff just to ask a per­mis­sion ques­tion.

But also, you know, dan­ger­ous.

I like my filesys­tem in­tact, so the ob­vi­ous so­lu­tion is to not run this thing di­rectly on my OS ac­count.

First in­stinct: throw it in a Docker con­tainer. Containers are for iso­la­tion, right?

Except I want Claude to be able to build Docker im­ages. And run con­tain­ers. And maybe or­ches­trate some stuff.

So now you need Docker-in-Docker, which means –privileged mode, which de­feats the en­tire pur­pose of sand­box­ing. That means trad­ing Claude might mess up my filesys­tem” for Claude has root-level ac­cess to my con­tainer run­time.”

There’s also the nested net­work­ing weird­ness, vol­ume mount­ing per­mis­sions that make you ques­tion your life choices, and the gen­eral feel­ing that you’re fight­ing the tool in­stead of us­ing it.

* #yolo run it bare metal: no, no and no

* sand­box-run­time: more of an ACL ap­proach, I want Claude to be able to do any­thing, be­cause it does­n’t have ac­cess to any­thing ex­cept the code

* fire­jail or sim­i­lar: same prob­lem as Docker-in-Docker

* cloud VM: costs money, has la­tency, need to up­load my code some­where

Then I re­mem­bered about a pro­ject that I’ve used be­fore Docker be­came all the rage: Vagrant.

If you weren’t around back then, Vagrant gives you proper VM iso­la­tion with a re­pro­ducible con­fig file. It’s ba­si­cally in­fra­struc­ture as code for your lo­cal dev en­vi­ron­ment.

* shared fold­ers that make it feel lo­cal enough

I had­n’t used VirtualBox in years since Docker con­tain­ers cov­ered all re­quire­ments un­til now, so I grabbed the lat­est ver­sion (7.2.4) and got started.

First va­grant up and… the VM is peg­ging my CPU at 100%+ while com­pletely idle.

I spent an hour turn­ing off var­i­ous VM fea­tures, tweak­ing set­tings, ask­ing LLMs ran­dom com­bi­na­tions of virtualbox high cpu idle”, you know, the usual.

Eventually I found this GitHub is­sue. VirtualBox 7.2.4 shipped with a re­gres­sion that causes high CPU us­age on idle guests. What are the odds.

Here’s what my sim­ple Vagrantfile looks like:

First boot takes a few min­utes to pro­vi­sion every­thing, and you need to sign in to Claude once for each pro­ject, but af­ter that, va­grant up is quite fast.

Then, when you are done for the day:

So, what can Claude do with these new­found pow­ers?

Since it’s run­ning in a VM, I also gave it sudo ac­cess and in­structed it that it has the power to do any­thing: in­stall sys­tem pack­ages, mod­ify con­figs, cre­ate files, run Docker con­tain­ers, what­ever.

* man­u­ally started a we­bapp API and in­spected it with curl re­quests

* in­stalled a browser and man­u­ally in­spected the app, then built end-to-end tests based on that

All things I’d be ner­vous about on my host ma­chine, es­pe­cially with the just do it” flag en­abled.

And now I feel Claude is much more ef­fec­tive since it has the ex­tra con­text, it’s not re­ly­ing on me to run the com­mand, re­turn the out­put or er­ror mes­sage, and then it­er­ate. It just does it by it­self.

Claude Code is­n’t ex­actly a re­source hog, and the VM has plenty of head­room. The shared folder sync works fine, no lag or weird­ness when files change. This is un­der Linux with VirtualBox, YMMV for other plat­forms.

* gen­eral oops I did­n’t mean Claude to do that”

What you’re NOT pro­tect­ing against:

* delet­ing the ac­tual pro­ject, since the file sync is two-way

* a ma­li­cious AI try­ing to es­cape the VM (VM es­cape vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties ex­ist, but they’re rare and re­quire de­lib­er­ate ex­ploita­tion)

* data ex­fil­tra­tion: the VM still has in­ter­net ac­cess, but be­sides the code there should­n’t re­ally be any data to ex­fil­trate

Threat model: I don’t trust my­self to al­ways catch what the agent is do­ing when I’m in the zone and just want stuff to work. This setup is about pre­vent­ing ac­ci­dents, not so­phis­ti­cated at­tacks.

Since all my pro­jects are in git I don’t care if it messes some­thing up in the pro­ject. Plus you get the ben­e­fit of be­ing able to use your reg­u­lar git tool­ing/​flows/​what­ever, with­out hav­ing to add cre­den­tials to the VM.

But if you need some­thing stricter, con­fig.vm.synced_­folder also sup­ports type: rsync”, one-time one-way sync from the ma­chine run­ning to the ma­chine be­ing started by Vagrant, but then it’s on you to sync it back or what­ever is needed.

This took a bit to get right, mostly be­cause of the VirtualBox CPU bug. But now it’s fric­tion­less. I can let Claude Code do what­ever it wants with­out fear, and if some­thing goes side­ways, I just nuke the VM and start fresh.

The Vagrantfile is short and re­pro­ducible. Drop it in any pro­ject di­rec­tory, va­grant up, and you’re sand­boxed.

If you’re us­ing Claude Code with the dan­ger­ous flag, I’d rec­om­mend some­thing like this. Even if you’re care­ful about what you ap­prove, it only takes one mo­ment to mess things up.

...

Read the original on blog.emilburzo.com »

10 228 shares, 59 trendiness

The 26,000-Year Astronomical Monument Hidden in Plain Sight

A high res­o­lu­tion draw­ing of the ter­razzo lay­out. (Courtesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

The west­ern flank of the Hoover Dam holds a ce­les­tial map that marks the time of the dam’s cre­ation based on the 25,772-year ax­ial pre­ces­sion of the earth.

One of the two mas­sive bronze cast sculp­tures that flank Hoover Dam’s Monument Plaza. (Photo by Alexander Rose)

On the west­ern flank of the Hoover Dam stands a lit­tle-un­der­stood mon­u­ment, com­mis­sioned by the US Bureau of Reclamation when con­struc­tion of the dam be­gan in 01931. The most no­tice­able parts of this cor­ner of the dam, now known as Monument Plaza, are the mas­sive winged bronze sculp­tures and cen­tral flag­pole which are of­ten pho­tographed by vis­i­tors. The most amaz­ing fea­ture of this plaza, how­ever, is un­der their feet as they take those pic­tures.

The plaza’s ter­razzo floor is ac­tu­ally a ce­les­tial map that marks the time of the dam’s cre­ation based on the 25,772-year ax­ial pre­ces­sion of the earth.

Marking in the ter­razzo floor of Monument Plaza show­ing the lo­ca­tion of Vega, which will be our North Star in roughly 12,000 years. (Photo by Alexander Rose)

I was par­tic­u­larly in­ter­ested in this mon­u­ment be­cause this ax­ial pre­ces­sion is also the slow­est cy­cle that we track in Long Now’s 10,000 Year Clock. Strangely, lit­tle to no doc­u­men­ta­tion of this in­stal­la­tion seemed to be avail­able, ex­cept for a few va­ca­tion pic­tures on Flickr. So the last time I was in Las Vegas, I made a spe­cial trip out to Hoover Dam to see if I could learn more about this ob­scure 26,000-year mon­u­ment.

I parked my rental car on the Nevada side of the dam on a day push­ing 100 de­grees. I quickly found Monument Plaza just op­po­site the vis­i­tor cen­ter where tours of the dam are of­fered. While the plaza is easy to find, it stands apart from all the main tours and sto­ries about the dam. With the ex­cep­tion of the writ­ing in the plaza floor it­self, the only in­for­ma­tion I could find came from a speaker run­ning on loop, broad­cast­ing a ba­sic de­scrip­tion of the mon­u­ment while vis­i­tors walked around the area. When I asked my tour guide about it, he sug­gested that there may be some his­tor­i­cal doc­u­men­ta­tion and di­rected me to Emme Woodward, the dam’s his­to­rian.

Left: Monument Plaza with ac­cess road on left. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation). Right: Hansen lay­ing out the ax­ial pre­ces­sion. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I was able to get in touch with her af­ter re­turn­ing home. As she sent me a few items, I be­gan to see why the Bureau of Reclamation does­n’t ex­plain very much about the mon­u­men­t’s back­ground. The first thing she sent me was a de­scrip­tion of the plaza by Oskar J. W. Hansen, the artist him­self, which I thought would tell me every­thing I wanted to know. While parts of it were help­ful, the artist’s state­ment of in­ten­tion was also highly con­vo­luted and opaque. An ex­cerpt:

These [human] pos­tures may be matched to their cor­re­spond­ing re­flexes in terms of an­gle and de­gree much as one would join cams in a worm-gear drive. There is an an­gle for doubt, for sor­row, for hate, for joy, for con­tem­pla­tion, and for de­vo­tion. There are as many oth­ers as there are fleet­ing emo­tions within the brain of each in­di­vid­ual who in­hab­its the Earth. Who knows not all these pos­tures of the mind if he would but stop to think of them as us­able fac­tors for de­ter­min­ing pro­cliv­i­ties of char­ac­ter? It is a knowl­edge bred down to us through the past ex­pe­ri­ence of the whole race of men.

It is pretty hard to imag­ine the US Bureau of Reclamation us­ing this type of write-up to in­ter­pret the mon­u­ment… and they don’t. And so there it stands, a 26,000-year clock of sorts, for all the world to see, and yet still mired in ob­scu­rity.

Markings on the floor show­ing that Thuban was the North Star for the an­cient Egyptians at the time of the Great Pyramids. (Photo by Alexander Rose)

While I may never to­tally un­der­stand the in­ner mo­ti­va­tions of the mon­u­men­t’s de­signer, I did want to un­der­stand it on a tech­ni­cal level. How did Hansen cre­ate a ce­les­tial clock face frozen in time that we can in­ter­pret and un­der­stand as the date of the dam’s com­ple­tion? The earth’s ax­ial pre­ces­sion is a rather ob­scure piece of as­tron­omy, and our un­der­stand­ing of it through his­tory has been spotty at best. That this ma­jor en­gi­neer­ing feat was cel­e­brated through this mon­u­ment to the ax­ial pre­ces­sion still held great in­ter­est to me, and I wanted to un­der­stand it bet­ter.

The gi­ant bronze stat­ues be­ing craned into place. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I pressed for more doc­u­men­ta­tion, and the his­to­rian sent me in­struc­tions for us­ing the Bureau of Reclamation’s im­age archive site as well as some key­words to search for. The black and white im­ages you see here come from this re­source. Using the con­vo­luted web site was a chal­lenge, and at first I had dif­fi­culty find­ing any pho­tos of the plaza be­fore or dur­ing its con­struc­tion. As I dis­cov­ered, the prob­lem was that I was search­ing with the term Monument Plaza,” a name only given to it af­ter its com­ple­tion in 01936. In or­der to find im­ages dur­ing its con­struc­tion, I had to search for Safety Island,” so named be­cause at the time of the dam’s con­struc­tion, it was an is­land in the road where work­ers could stand be­hind a berm to pro­tect them­selves from the never-end­ing on­slaught of ce­ment trucks.

Hansen next to the com­pleted ax­ial pre­ces­sion lay­out be­fore the ter­razzo was laid in. (Image cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I now had some his­tor­i­cal text and pho­tos, but I was still miss­ing a com­plete di­a­gram of the plaza that would al­low me to re­ally un­der­stand it. I con­tacted the his­to­rian again, and she ob­tained per­mis­sion from her su­pe­ri­ors to re­lease the ac­tual build­ing plans. I sus­pect that they gen­er­ally don’t like to re­lease tech­ni­cal plans of the dam for se­cu­rity rea­sons, but it seems they deemed my re­quest a low se­cu­rity risk as the mon­u­ment is not part of the struc­ture of the dam. The his­to­rian sent me a tube full of large blue­prints and a CD of the same prints al­ready scanned. With this in hand I was fi­nally able to re-con­struct the tech­ni­cal in­tent of the plaza and how it works.

In or­der to un­der­stand how the plaza marks the date of the dam’s con­struc­tion in the nearly 26,000-year cy­cle of the earth’s pre­ces­sion, it is worth ex­plain­ing what ex­actly ax­ial pre­ces­sion is. In the sim­plest terms, it is the earth wobbling” on its tilted axis like a gy­ro­scope — but very, very slowly. This wob­bling ef­fec­tively moves what we see as the cen­ter point that stars ap­pear to re­volve around each evening.

Long ex­po­sure of star trails de­pict­ing how all the stars ap­pear to re­volve around the earth’s ce­les­tial axis, which is cur­rently pointed close to our cur­rent North Star — Polaris. Note that when I say that the stars of the night sky appear to” ro­tate around Polaris, it is be­cause this ap­par­ent ro­ta­tion is only due to our van­tage point on a ro­tat­ing planet. (Image cour­tesy of NASA)

Presently, this cen­ter point lies very close to the con­ve­niently bright star Polaris. The rea­son we have his­tor­i­cally paid so much at­ten­tion to this ce­les­tial cen­ter, or North Star, is be­cause it is the star that stays put all through the course of the night. Having this one fixed point in the sky is the foun­da­tion of all ce­les­tial nav­i­ga­tion.

Figure 1. The earth sits at roughly a 23 de­gree tilt. Axial pre­ces­sion is that tilt slowly wob­bling around in a cir­cle, chang­ing what we per­ceive as the ce­les­tial pole or North Star.” (Image from Wikipedia en­try on Axial Precession, CC3.0.)

But that point near Polaris, which we call the North Star, is ac­tu­ally slowly mov­ing and trac­ing a cir­cle through the night sky. While Polaris is our North Star, Hansen’s ter­razzo floor points out that the North Star of the an­cient Egyptians, as they built the great pyra­mids, was Thuban. And in about 12,000 years, our North Star will be Vega. The work­ings of this pre­ces­sion are best ex­plained with an an­i­ma­tion, as in fig­ure 1. Here you can see how the axis of the earth traces a cir­cle in the sky over the course of 25,772 years.

Unfortunately it is a bit dif­fi­cult to see how this all works in the in­laid floor at Monument Plaza. The view that you re­ally want to have of the plaza is di­rectly from above. You would need a crane to get this view of the real thing, but by us­ing the orig­i­nal tech­ni­cal draw­ing as an un­der­lay I was able to mark up a di­a­gram which hope­fully clar­i­fies it (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Description over­laid on the orig­i­nal tech­ni­cal draw­ing for the lay­out of ter­razzo floor. (Underlay cour­tesy of US Bureau of Reclamation, color no­ta­tions by Alexander Rose.)

In this di­a­gram, you can see that the cen­ter of the cir­cle traced by the ax­ial pre­ces­sion is ac­tu­ally the mas­sive flag pole in the cen­ter of the plaza. This ax­ial cir­cle is promi­nently marked around the pole, and the an­gle of Polaris was de­picted as pre­cisely as pos­si­ble to show where it would have been on the date of the dam’s open­ing. Hansen used the rest of the plaza floor to show the lo­ca­tion of the plan­ets vis­i­ble that evening, and many of the bright stars that ap­pear in the night sky at that lo­ca­tion.

By com­bin­ing planet lo­ca­tions with the an­gle of pre­ces­sion, we are able to pin­point the time of the dam’s com­ple­tion down to within a day. We are now de­sign­ing a sim­i­lar sys­tem — though with mov­ing parts — in the di­als of the 10,000 Year Clock. It is likely that at least ma­jor por­tions of the Hoover Dam will still be in place hun­dreds of thou­sands of years from now. Hopefully the Clock will still be tick­ing and Hansen’s ter­razzo floor will still be there, even if it con­tin­ues to baf­fle vis­i­tors.

A draw­ing of the ter­razzo lay­out. Click here for a high res­o­lu­tion ver­sion. (Courtesy of US Bureau of Reclamation)

I would like to thank Emme Woodward of the US Bureau of Reclamation for all her help in find­ing the orig­i­nal im­ages and plans of Monument Plaza. If you have fur­ther in­ter­est in read­ing Hansen’s orig­i­nal writ­ings about the plaza or in see­ing the plans, I have up­loaded all the scans to the Internet Archive.

...

Read the original on longnow.org »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.