Bonds only give you certainty to the extent that inflation remains certain.
Stocks generally rise with inflation, whereas bonds continue paying out the same nominal amount, which buys you less over time.
As a retiree I'm 50/45/5 in stocks/bonds/cash, having opted for a conservative portfolio. The stocks are the only reason I haven't lost buying power. But the bonds have performed so poorly that I've barely kept up with inflation despite the amazing bull run in stocks.
Are we talking about bonds or government bonds here? The former will beat inflations assuming you don't just buy AAA rated ones. Investment grade perpetual bonds in US dollars yield over 6.5% on a Yield-to-call basis.
As someone who is currently going through the diagnostic process for MCAS with a specialist:
A negative Tryptase blood test doesn't mean you don't have it, it could just be that you're not having an active flare-up at the time. So they also prescribe high doses of H1 and H2 blockers and then you report whether symptoms have improved across 2 or more organ systems after a few weeks.
90% of EDS sufferers have the Hypermobile variant, for which there is no genetic test. At least thats what I was told by an EDS specialist a few years ago.
I requested my personal data from Lexus to see what they had on me.
Not only did they store sensitive data about me, it also included personal data about 2 random Toyota owners who were incorrectly linked to my email address. I could see their full names, phone numbers, home addresses, details about their cars and every interaction they'd had with their dealers. It is a goldmine for a bad actor.
And this is despite me not signing up for "Connected Services", because Toyota/Lexus's privacy notice says they too may sell your location and driving behavior to third parties including insurance companies if you enable features like Emergency SOS.
I've implemented PCI-DSS and have 12 years of level 1 audits behind me. I actually find their rules to be sane, pretty good security practice. Internally, we made many of the controls standard across the board even for out-of-scope systems because they were sensible and we'd already built the tooling for it. If you implement it well, once you're compliant it is easy to stay compliant.
And yes, there is plenty of incentive to keep things out of PCI scope. I'd say that is PCI working as intended. Why would you want a larger attack surface that touches your credit card data?
I've had SOC2 auditors choose a random commit from our GitHub history, then ask to see the associated Jira ticket, logs from the build and deployment, etc. Hard to reliably pass an audit if you don't know which changes they'll drill down into.
They also asked for proof of system-enforced processes (e.g. GitHub branch protection rules and the setting for enforcing peer review for each change) which were basically proof of consistency.
They do that because in the DRL process you specified a change management process involving Github and Jira. If you specified a different process (for instance, Post-It notes applied to the bathroom wall), they would randomly ask for evidence about those Post-It notes.
That's what we're talking about when we say virtually any tool you can come up with will satisfy "vulnerability scans". For Cloudflare, it was nmap. I think they're right about this.
My insurance agent told me that insurers in the US generally don't cover floods at all, because its expected that your compensation will come from the government.
Not just race, but political orientation. Not all white South Africans qualify for refugee status - only Afrikaners. A group who are generally conservative and likely to vote Republican once they've been fast-tracked to citizenship. (English-speaking, urban white people tend to vote more liberal there.)
Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?
> Do you think the Biden-admin immigration shenanigans (2M illegal crossings a year, "temporary" protected status, CBP One, etc.) weren't predominantly aimed at a group of people who were deemed to be more likely to vote Democratic?
Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.
In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.
That "theory" has never held water, and was always a racist dogwhistle.
> Most Hispanic families and cultures are overwhelmingly socially conservative leaning.
The idea that Hispanics and other ethnic minorities would vote Democratic was so popular that people wrote a whole book about it[0], until the idea was finally put to bed with Trump's electoral gain among every nonwhite group between 2016 and 2024.
Until then, the broad demographic makeup of the illegal crossings during Biden's years would absolutely have been assumed to lean Democratic.
> In addition, non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections.
Noncitizens count for Congressional apportionment, and as GP said, there is the implicit understanding that at least some of those noncitizens will become citizens in the future and vote for the party that facilitated their arrival into this country.
> In 2015, in an essay The Emerging Republican Advantage,[4] Judis recanted his views in the book and argued that the long term Democratic majority had given way to an "unstable equilibrium" between the parties. He wrote that the long term Democratic Majority was gone as Hispanics and Asians were considerably less Democratic than he assumed and that white working class voters were abandoning the Democratic party.[5]
It was a stupid premise, of course they were wrong.
It did more to help US conservatives through counter-propaganda than anything else.
I won't defend Biden's weak border, but I don't see any signs that he was specifically letting in people based on their political leaning while excluding others, nor were they given a fast track to citizenship.
Stocks generally rise with inflation, whereas bonds continue paying out the same nominal amount, which buys you less over time.
As a retiree I'm 50/45/5 in stocks/bonds/cash, having opted for a conservative portfolio. The stocks are the only reason I haven't lost buying power. But the bonds have performed so poorly that I've barely kept up with inflation despite the amazing bull run in stocks.
reply