Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="357709" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Marc-Andreessen">Marc Andreessen</keyword> is the cofounder of the wildly successful VC firm Andreessen Horowitz.</li><li>In a recent interview, Andreessen was asked to give his best <keyword id="70503" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="advice">advice</keyword> to a smart 23-year-old American.</li><li>"Your passion should be your hobby, not your work," he said. "Do it in your spare time."</li></ul>Marc Andreessen is one of the biggest and most successful names in tech.He helped shape the early internet and cofounded Netscape as well as several other startups.Through the venture capital firm he launched with Ben Horowitz, Andreessen Horowitz, he has backed a dizzying array of tech companies from Twitter and Facebook to Roblox and Clubhouse.In <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/interview-marc-andreessen-vc-and">a recent interview with Noah Smith</a>, Andreessen was asked what his best advice would be to a smart 23-year-old American today."Don't follow your passion," he said. "Your passion is likely more dumb and useless than anything else. Your passion should be your hobby, not your work. Do it in your spare time."The legendary VC added that young people should look for jobs in the most vibrant areas of the economy and make themselves increasingly valuable to the customers and colleagues they work with."It can sometimes feel that all the exciting things have already happened, that the frontier is closed, that we're at the end of technological history and there's nothing left to do but maintain what already exists," he continued. "In fact, the opposite is true."In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Andreessen wrote <a href="https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/">a widely circulated essay</a> in which he denounced the lack of imagination and initiative that left the world vulnerable to the catastrophe.As the world emerges from the worst of the disruption, Andreessen says there's endless opportunity to shape a better future for people."We're surrounding by rotting incumbents that will all need to be replaced by new technologies," he told Smith. "Let's get on it."

Legendary VC Marc Andreessen's advice to 23-year-olds: 'Don't follow your passion'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>As AI tools revolutionize business, workers are worried they're at risk of losing their jobs.</li><li>Yet Noah Smith, who writes the Noahpinion newsletter, contends there are nuances amid the expected impact.</li></ul>With businesses now deploying AI tools to do everything from <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/most-promising-generative-artificial-intelligence-startups-according-vcs-venture-capital-2023-3#adept-1">translating speech to building language learning models for big law</a>, many workers are <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-jobs-at-risk-replacement-artificial-intelligence-ai-labor-trends-2023-02">worried they might soon be out of a job</a>. Yet Noah Smith, the writer behind the popular Noahpinion economics <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">newsletter</a>, contended in a <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> on Monday that people shouldn't worry about losing their jobs to automation just yet. "The "folk model" of automation is that it throws humans out of work — today you had a job performing some sort of valuable work, and tomorrow you're on the welfare rolls," Smith <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. "We've been deploying automation technology for centuries, and as of 2023, pretty much every human who wants a job has a job," Smith <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>, "but there's basically no way to get people to believe that this next wave of automation will be the one that finally sends humans into obsolescence."<h3>What exactly does automation mean?</h3>In his <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a>, Smith examined several studies on job automation over the years from researchers at firms ranging from <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Citi_GPS_Technology_Work_2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Citibank</a> to <a href="https://www.pwc.com/hu/hu/kiadvanyok/assets/pdf/impact_of_automation_on_jobs.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PriceWaterHouseCoopers</a>. Smith points out that the term "automation" in these studies is never clearly defined and together they illustrate hypotheticals that poses different levels of "replacement." Some scenarios, such as "You're going to get new tools that let you automate the boring part of your job, move up to a more responsible job title" even present newfound benefits.That means it's hard to draw sweeping conclusions about what automation means for any particular individual. The other issue Smith pointed out is that these studies don't touch on how the labor market will change overall. "If one job is destroyed by automation and two more are created for higher wages, workers obviously won out," he <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suggested</a>. Yet studies on the topic only seem to focus on automation, which can suggest that workers are the losers in the situation, even if that's not really the case, Smith <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. <h3>Assessing "replacement" is often subjective </h3>Smith also <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed</a> the subjectivity used in older studies for assessing a job's risk of replacement. In one study, <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Frey and Osborne (2013)</a>, researchers <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that they "subjectively hand-labelled" jobs from a database developed by the US Department of Labor with a score of 1 if they were "automatable" and 0 if they were not. The researchers also <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that they only focused on a small percentage of jobs in the database "whose computerisation label we are highly confident about" in order to further reduce the risk of "subjective bias affecting our analysis."The good thing, Smith said, was that studies have improved their methodology since then. A <a href="https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent.html?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> by Goldman Sachs published earlier this month assessed AI’s impact on automation by viewing jobs as a sum of tasks described in a government database as opposed to a holistic entity.Smith <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that Goldman's researchers also recognized that "automation often ends up complementing a worker's effort instead of substituting for it" when only some tasks are automated. Added to that, the study supported the point that automation doesn't always spell layoffs, noting <a href="https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent.html?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">that</a> "technology can replace some tasks, but it can also make us more productive performing other tasks, and create new tasks — and new jobs" which supports the point that automation doesn't always spell layoffs. Yet Forbes <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/03/31/goldman-sachs-predicts-300-million-jobs-will-be-lost-or-degraded-by-artificial-intelligence/?sh=61082ff782b4&amp;utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> on the study with the headline "Goldman Sachs Predicts 300 Million Jobs Will Be Lost Or Degraded By Artificial Intelligence." "A lot of people are so used to the "robots take our jobs" narrative that they report every result they see through that warped and distorted lens," Smith <a href="https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/nobody-knows-how-many-jobs-will-be?utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. Smith did not immediately respond to Insider's request for a comment.

Here's why people shouldn't freak out yet about losing their jobs to AI automation

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="12395991" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="public-opinion" source="Orion">Public opinion</keyword> on defunding the police took a major turn in 2021 compared to 2020.</li><li>New year-to-year <keyword id="11940429" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="polling" source="Orion">polling</keyword> from Pew Research shows sharp drops among Democrats and Black adults.</li></ul>After a strong onset of support among some groups, public opinion around defunding the police has taken a sharp downward turn in 2021, according to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-share-of-americans-say-they-want-more-spending-on-police-in-their-area/">new data from Pew Research</a>.In a year-to-year poll, Pew found more Americans want to increase police funding in 2021 compared to 2020. The most notable drops in support were among Black adults and people age 18 to 49, both of which had plurality support when Pew asked the same question about police funding last year.Now, Black and young adults have a minority of support behind decreasing police funding.Just 23% of Black respondents said they support decreased police funding this year, down from 42% in 2020. For young adults, support for decreased funding went from 34% to 23%.The <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/W95-ATP-Methodology_CHECKED-NEW.pdf">September 2021 poll</a> was conducted among 10,371 respondents with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6 percentage points. When referring to the 2020 data, Pew cites a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Police-Spending-Topline-W92.pdf">similar survey from July</a> of that year."<keyword id="12021658" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="defund-the-police" source="Orion">Defund the police</keyword>" was the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/what-does-defund-police-really-mean/612904/">subject of intense debate as a slogan</a> when it broke into the mainstream in the summer of 2020 after the police murder of George Floyd. Some proponents argued it meant shifting resources from police departments to social services, while others saw it more strictly as reducing funding or even abolishing the police.When asked specifically if they would prefer to see police funding increased, decreased, or kept the same, just 25% of Democrats said they would like to see it reduced, down from a plurality of 41% in 2020."Since 2020, the views of Black Americans and Democrats have changed more than the views of White and Hispanic adults and Republicans when it comes to decreasing funding for local police," the Pew authors wrote in the summary of the poll.A rise in public concern around violent crime is one potential factor behind the shift cited by Pew. In 2020, the latest year available, the nation-wide murder rate spiked 30% according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040904770/fbi-data-murder-increase-2020">FBI statistics</a> - the largest increase since records-keeping began decades ago.In June 2020, just 41% of respondents agreed violent crime "is a very big problem in the country today." That number shot up to 61% by a July 2021 survey.

Support for defunding the police collapsed in 2021, with steep drops among Black adults and Democrats, new poll shows

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>What's old is new again.
In a <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/10/21/could-this-be-the-new-counter-culture?curator=MediaREDEF">recent interview with Glenn Beck</a>, entrepreneur Peter Thiel had some surprisingly positive things to say about the gold standard and how it relates to innovation in tech. This is comes as a surprise as Thiel co-founded online payments system PayPal. From the interview (emphasis ours):
Where we've had progress in the world of bits but not in the world of atoms, and this world of bits, we've had progress in computers, Internet, mobile Internet. Technology just means information technology. It's all about bits, but the world of atoms, space travel, energy like nuclear power, biotech, new medical devices, that's been much slower, and there's been much less progress in those areas in the last forty years. …
One's been regulated, the other has not, but we've had this sort of dualistic world where the virtual world of bits has been growing very fast, but the real world of atoms has been kind of stagnant. And I think there's a strange counterpoint where the same thing happened with our currency, where the real value of money became separate from the virtual in August of '71 when we went off the gold standard. And so, you know, whatever you think of the gold standard, it had the virtue of connecting the real with the virtual.
So I think there's nothing wrong with cyberspace or computers or anything, but it's when it becomes separated from the real that it's bad. And these successful companies have actually been the ones that somehow connected it. Facebook succeeded because it was about real people having a presence on the Internet. There were all these other social networking sites people had, but they were all about fictional people. One of my friends started a company in 1997, seven years before Facebook, called SocialNet. And they had all these ideas, and you could be like a cat, and I'd be a dog on the Internet, and we'd have this virtual reality, and we would just not be ourselves. That didn't work because reality always works better than any fake version of it. 
The problem, of course, with connecting the real and the abstract when it comes to the money supply of entire economies is that sometimes it's helpful for the central bank to be able to expand the money supply, which is hard to do when you define it based on how many blocks of gold are sitting in the basement of a government building.
Twitter had some interesting perspectives on this, particularly from hedge fund manager Mark Dow:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
In order to remove any doubt cc: <a href="https://twitter.com/Noahpinion">@Noahpinion</a> RT <a href="https://twitter.com/shaneferro">@shaneferro</a>: Peter Thiel praises the gold standard <a href="https://t.co/E4tN9nXuRz">https://t.co/E4tN9nXuRz</a>
- Mark Dow (@mark_dow) <a href="https://twitter.com/mark_dow/status/527107934170669058">October 28, 2014</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/cthorm">@cthorm</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Noahpinion">@Noahpinion</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/shaneferro">@shaneferro</a> his whole framework has been wrong
- Mark Dow (@mark_dow) <a href="https://twitter.com/mark_dow/status/527110273229144064">October 28, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/cthorm">@cthorm</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Noahpinion">@Noahpinion</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/shaneferro">@shaneferro</a> I should've said "macro framework"
- Mark Dow (@mark_dow) <a href="https://twitter.com/mark_dow/status/527110787744423936">October 28, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Warm the cockles of Churchill's heart. MT <a href="https://twitter.com/hblodget">@hblodget</a>: O for goodness sake RT <a href="https://twitter.com/shaneferro">@shaneferro</a>: Thiel praises gold standard <a href="https://t.co/t2IU9f0UC9">https://t.co/t2IU9f0UC9</a>
- Nigel Cameron (@nigelcameron) <a href="https://twitter.com/nigelcameron/status/527108123711250432">October 28, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
'Finally, something with *real* value. Enough of this virtual nonsense.' [Holds rock in hand]
- Ben Walsh (@BenDWalsh) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenDWalsh/status/527109815504756737">October 28, 2014</a></blockquote>

In other Thiel gold news, <a href="" think20of20gold20as20not20a20protection20against20inflation20but20as20an20anti-investment.20You20invest20in20gold20when20theres20nothing20good20to20invest20in.2020Read20more:20http:="" www.businessinsider.com="" thiel-on-paulsons-gold-bet-its-anti-investment-2009-12ixzz3HS6KYGQd="">back in 2009</a> he called gold the "anti-investment." 
(via <a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/peter-thiel-gold-standard/">Jim Pethokoukis</a>)

PETER THIEL: There Was Virtue In The Gold Standard

Author and philosophical finance whiz Nassim Taleb <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-taleb-new-years-resolutions-2013-12">began 2014</a> with a bold challenge to his fellow economic thinkers.
"I would love to debate a prominent economist LIVE in front of an audience… Nobody has accepted so far," <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151945722488375&amp;id=13012333374">he wrote on his Facebook page</a> a few days ago.
So who is up for the challenge?
"I think any economist who debated Taleb would want to use this," The Week's John Aziz <a href="https://twitter.com/azizonomics/status/419881272140242944">quipped on Twitter</a>, pointing to <a href="http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Nassim-Taleb-Shorting-Treasuries/2010/02/04/id/348993">this 2010 interview where Taleb</a> argues shorting treasuries is a "no brainer" due to the U.S. deficit and the risk of inflation.
"So long as you see the picture of Larry Summers going to Davos, you have to stay short U.S. Treasuries for another year. It means they (the Obama administration) don't know what's going on," <a href="http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Nassim-Taleb-Shorting-Treasuries/2010/02/04/id/348993">Taleb told MoneyNews' Dan Weil</a> in 2010.
Taleb went off on Aziz and others, arguing that his actual profit and loss ("PL") wasn't indicative of his 2010 statement, which would have presumably lost money.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/azizonomics">@azizonomics</a> THis is very idiotic: you would want to see my PL from this.
- Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) <a href="https://twitter.com/nntaleb/statuses/419882085822640130">January 5, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en" data-conversation="none">
<a href="https://twitter.com/azizonomics">@azizonomics</a> Bullshit vendors/journalists don't realize that PL is not a frequency thing.
- Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) <a href="https://twitter.com/nntaleb/statuses/419884864020557824">January 5, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/stephen_knapp">@stephen_knapp</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/azizonomics">@azizonomics</a> fucking idiot my prediction did not fail
- Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) <a href="https://twitter.com/nntaleb/statuses/419886210559913984">January 5, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en" data-conversation="none">
<a href="https://twitter.com/CounterHedge">@CounterHedge</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/azizonomics">@azizonomics</a> What John Aziz seems clueless about is nonlinear + cherry picking (1000 trades a year).
- Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) <a href="https://twitter.com/nntaleb/statuses/419893010348785664">January 5, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/Noahpinion">@Noahpinion</a> UNlike bullshit vendors like Noah Smith, by <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23skininthegame&amp;src=hash">#skininthegame</a> I did OK on the trades. PL is not words
- Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) <a href="https://twitter.com/nntaleb/statuses/419893806129872896">January 5, 2014</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/azizonomics">@azizonomics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CounterHedge">@CounterHedge</a> John I did 700,000 trades in career, was "wrong" on between 650,000 and 695,000. Wish I did more. Kapish?
- Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) <a href="https://twitter.com/nntaleb/statuses/419897770959306752">January 5, 2014</a></blockquote>

Nassim Taleb Is Going Totally Ballistic On Twitter Right Now

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image">REUTERS/David RyderA protest sign is pictured during a rally to raise the hourly <keyword id="562632" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="minimum-wage">minimum wage</keyword> to $15 for fast-food workers at City Hall in Seattle, Washington December 5, 2013.</div></div></div>Democratic support is building to raise the minimum <keyword id="6465593" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="wage">wage</keyword>, but it faces strident opposition from Republicans arguing that requiring companies to pay their workers more will hurt employment.
But there is a different way that the government could ensure workers receive fare wages without forcing companies to raise them: <keyword id="1969004" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Wage-Subsidies">wage subsidies</keyword>.
The government would provide low-income borrowers with a supplement to their wages. For instance, we could ensure all workers receive a wage of $10/hour by providing workers with a $2.75 subsidy/hour. 
This would have the same wage effect on workers as if Congress raised the minimum wage without the potential negative employment effects that worry Republicans. Company expenses won't change. The government would shoulder the cost.
However, wage subsidies do not replace the minimum wage. On the contrary, they are a complement to each other since the biggest concern with wage subsidies is that businesses will cut employee wages and let the government pick up the slack. The minimum wage mitigates this risk, although it does not eliminate it entirely.
In addition, like the <keyword id="1969003" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Earned-Income-Tax-Credit">Earned Income Tax Credit</keyword> (EITC), wage subsidies promote work. The EITC is a refundable tax credit available to working families. Wage subsidies would work in a similar way as only workers would benefit from them.
In fact, while many economists are big proponents of the EITC, economist Noah Smith argues that wage subsidies are actually better than the EITC.
"For one, they are automatic - poor people don't have to take the time and initiative and mental energy to go claim them," <a href="http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/wage-subsidies.html">he writes on his blog Noahpinion</a>. "Second, they will probably make people feel more valuable, since people tend to view wages as money they "earn". From the worker's perspective, it will just look like wages went up."
Smith even goes so far to suggest that wage subsidies could replace the EITC entirely, coupled with some other form of welfare (he suggests a guaranteed basic income) to help out the unemployed.
The cost of such a program would vary depending on how comprehensive it is. If we gave all 240 million workers in the U.S. a $3/hour subsidy (U.S. workers work around 1790 hours a year), the program would cost north of a trillion dollars.
But that can be means-tested as well so that benefits phase out and the reduce the costs considerably. The Census Bureau reports that there are 141 million working Americans with incomes less than $40,000. A $1.50 subsidy to each of them (combined with raising the minimum wage to $8.50 and indexing it to inflation, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/04/making-low-wages-liveable/subsidize-business-for-pay-raises">as Jim Pethokoukis suggests</a>) would cost almost $400 billion a year.
That's still a considerable amount. In comparison, the <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/family/eitc.cfm">EITC costs $60 billion a year</a>. Noah Smith suggests a land tax for additional funding. A carbon tax could raise $100 billion as well. The higher incomes would also reduce the costs of other welfare programs as people move up the income ladder, but those effects are tougher to quantify.
There's no doubt wage subsidies would increase the size of government, but they would provide millions of working Americans with a livable income without further distorting the labor market and without disincentivizing work. That's a powerful combination.

You Searched For "noahpinion" and got 6 results

Legendary VC Marc Andreessen's advice to 23-year-olds: 'Don't follow your passion'

Dominick Reuter

Here's why people shouldn't freak out yet about losing their jobs to AI automation

Lakshmi Varanasi

Support for defunding the police collapsed in 2021, with steep drops among Black adults and Democrats, new poll shows

Jake Lahut

PETER THIEL: There Was Virtue In The Gold Standard

Shane Ferro

Nassim Taleb Is Going Totally Ballistic On Twitter Right Now

Steven Perlberg

How About We Just Pay Companies To Give Workers More Money

Danny Vinik

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides