Probably for a number of reasons, starting from our desire as a society to ensure they are as broadly applied as possible, which is in turn driven by our desire as a society (read: "collective") to ensure that they're as effective as possible, which means driving for herd immunity and even things like permanent eradication.
> Probably for a number of reasons, starting from our desire as a society to ensure they are as broadly applied as possible, which is in turn driven by our desire as a society (read: "collective") to ensure that they're as effective as possible, which means driving for herd immunity and even things like permanent eradication.
That's not relevant. If vaccines cause more good than harm (which I believe they do), then the harm they do cause can and should be priced in to their development as an incentive for their creators to minimize that harm.
Only insane, stupid, or malicious people would say "let's purposely remove incentives to design things in a less harmful way".
And most reasonable people understand that gigantic pharma companies making billions of dollars per vaccine are suddenly going to stop because they're exposed to additional liability.
The only people advocating for insulation from liability are either pharma shills or have been duped by them. Sane people possessing the ability to engage in basic logic understand that it's not reasonable.
Probably not in the way that you might mean it, but for me (Xoogler, 2010 - 2023) internalizing bazel means:
"Hey, where's your tool's code in $MONOREPO?"
"<path/to/stuff>"
Cool:
g4d my-citc-client # moral equivalent to `cd ~/repos/stuff`
blaze run path/to/stuff:target
... and you get a running version of whatever $stuff is, immediately built from head, quickly - no matter the set of dependencies, or which language they were built in. I can just try your thing out immediately with a common interface for all the builds, and I don't need to understand the build at all, unless or until I do, and then OK, absolutely every single build is always expressed in exactly the same way, same idioms, same patterns...
Probably it's just down to a different understanding of the word "internalize".
I know how to _use_ bazel effectively to do my work. I'm comfortable with its well-designed surface but whenever I've tried to understand the inner machinery I've given up - especially when presented with a bunch of custom skylark rules code.
It's like an anti-git in some regards - the surface of git (the CLI) is an abomination in many ways but the the mechanics of the tool are so ingrained and the model is so clear and simple - I never feel uncomfortable.
I've a need to have some comprehension of the inner machinery or the underlying model of my tools.
I've personally driven adoption of Bazel across two teams in our company over the last two years (we have an extremely fragmented set of repos that touches everything from hardware, to end-to-end simulation, to cloud software, to CDK stacks that deploy the software). There are still some aspects (ha) that confuse me like transitions, exec groups and constraints, but most of the time it's all about building a graph of actions (command executions) by executing code, and hooking up external dependencies into the graph inputs. Mind telling what confuses you in particular? Maybe I can be of help somehow.
The problem is it's very easy to make a long-term bet the stock will go up (buy the stock) but it is very hard to make a long-term bet the stock will go down (you have to pick a date by which it occurs).
You're correct, but your assertion needs a qualifier: it's hard for small investors to make a long-term bet that a stock will go down.
Large investors do not need to purchase index funds, instead they can direct index and purchase the underlying stocks directly. If you're a small investor, the index funds offer diversification but without the ability to divest from individual stocks covered by the index; large investors that are direct indexing can just decide to exclude meme stocks and not buy them, and in so doing make a long-term bet that those stocks will underperform the rest of the index (and without needing to pick a specific date by which that underperformance will happen, unlike a short).
There's an argument to be made that there should be a maximum share price (stocks that reach the maximum trigger an automatic stock split), and that stocks should be allowed to trade for fractions of a penny (after all, what really prevents this in a day and age where all trades are electronically settled? Nobody needs to cash out for literal copper pennies...). Much smaller individual share prices would make it more feasible for smaller investors to build direct indexing strategies.
True, though there are some ways of even relatively small investors doing direct indexing.
But when you start modifying the index you're not really indexing anymore ...
And this is not really a bet against the stock, just a value tilt away from it betting that there are better performance elsewhere. You don't make money because TSLA tanked, you make money (or don't lose money) because your money was elsewhere.
It's been interesting to review my portfolio, such as it is, against this situation, and see that I'm down relatively little. Not because I've bet against anything per se, but I made a conscious decision years ago to diversify out of the SP500 ("VTSAX and chill!") into broader and exUS indices.
The broader US market is only about 25% bigger than the S&P500, FWIW. (Or put another way, S&P500 is about 80% of all US equity.) They also trade in almost lockstep:
This is specifically one of those points in stock history where it isn't true; the heavyweights of the S&P 500 are dragging it down while the smaller companies are less affected.
I brought a graph in my earlier comment! Even over the past year, they're highly correlated. (And the S&P500 is ahead over the period -- not the other 25%.)
I can't speak to their quality, but every time I see their name, I wonder about how they're received in England: Americans might generally be unaware, but "smeg" as a name doesn't land well there, as I understand it.
A UK comedy called RedDwarf used variations of smeg as a mild expletive quite liberally. When asked some of the producers claimed they made it up to get around broadcast rules, but most people think it's a shortening of smegma.
Probably for a number of reasons, starting from our desire as a society to ensure they are as broadly applied as possible, which is in turn driven by our desire as a society (read: "collective") to ensure that they're as effective as possible, which means driving for herd immunity and even things like permanent eradication.
For those who aren't aware of any "blanket liability immunity", I found https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/faq a useful starting point. I hadn't heard of such before.