He said that the current state is the worst possible. That means that, out of all the situations that could have occurred up to now, this one is the worst.

This is not an assessment of how bad the situation could eventually become.

If you want to be pedantic, at least be right about it.

If it’s your money, it’s your call. I’m just a guy on the internet. I tried to cover your response using “ideological reasons”.

All i tried doing was to answer the question given “Is this good?”. And the answer is: This is neither a prediction for the future of ai nor the inception of a solid financial product, but rather a cash grab based on a currently trending sentiment.

The big problem is, that you can’t cut AI out of your portfolio, only businesses. Big businesses have multiple business segments. Cutting such companies out reduces your diversification much more, than just the AI portion of businesses, just because they dabble in AI with 1% of there earnings. This is a fundamental problem with these type of indices/ETFs.

You are basically betting, that you can predict better than other investors, which companies perform good in the future. Historically speaking very few people could do this reliably, and arguably they were just lucky and retired/died before they could loose.

This index is not a good tool to hedge your portfolio against the AI-crash. It’s a way to cash in on the anti-ai sentiment. Fonds provider are going to license the name, because they think there are enough people out there, who want to exclude AI from there portfolio for ideological reasons, not because they have a solid financial argument against these businesses.

I think it is just some overzealous name redaction.

The arm of the cactus in the first frame is also pointing forwards or towards the position of the second frame. In the second frame the arm is pointing away from the camera.

Somebody rearranged the whole cupboard between the frames.

It is so wild to me that in the US it is phrased as party identification. That implies, that who you are voting for is a deep part of your identity.

In my country it is the ‘Sunday Question’, because people are asked ‘If an election would be happening on this sunday, who would you vote for?’ If you would ask people what party they identify with, the vastly majority would say ‘none of them’

If I want to identify with a party, I would join them as a member. I am voting for the guy/party, that would be the best fit in my opinion. That can be vastly different in federal, state or local elections. My election choice is not my identity. I don’t identify with a party.

The case and especially the group look weird to me. This is supposed to be a extreme-left/anarchist/eco-terrorist group. It is supposed to be active since the 2010s.

They were able to identify weakpoints in critical infrastructure multiple times now. So they must have a relatively large network. But officially nobody knows how big this group is or how they are organised. Nobody was able to catch any members.

Their targets are really inconsistent. Research Facilities, factorys, car dealerships and, like in this case, critical infrastructure. They seem to have no specific target, just society as a whole.

They have a volcano theme going. Nothing screams anarchism like volcanos on Iceland(?).

But the police and secret services are convinced that this is a genuine group. That the manifests are genuine.

This whole thing screams 90s movie eco-terrorist vibe, instead of a group organising around a specific goal. TBF there are people out there that have rage in them and they latch onto whatever ideology to justify living out that rage.

But come on, they want to raise class awareness, by turning the power off in the middle of winter.

I just skimmend the article and the accompanying report. But the analysis of what happened is contrary to my understanding. As far as I’m aware voter turnout in swing states (aka the ones that are actually important) was actually higher in 2024 compared to the few last election cycles.

Compared to Clinton and Biden, Harris was able to draw from the not-voting pool in states, where it mattered. Just Trump did it better.

The conclusion, that following the populist narrative of your enemy instead of drafting your own looses you votes, may be right, but I think the analysis, how they got to that conclusion is not what actually happened.

Not a US citizen or particularly versed with US politics, so I would be happy to hear something contrary.