At least it has some years for the inevitable bounce left. It’s getting there. Just kind of something someone trying to retire would have a panic over.

Yeah. You’re right. And their recounting of what they invested in makes no sense. I caught that later. So there’s definitely poor choices somewhere they aren’t mentioning.

Okay… I even came with receipts on this one. Am I just annoying? What’s with the downvote, even on ones where people are suggesting target date funds? The fund will bounce, it’s just a huge dip for one that was supposed to be, according to professionals, safe for retirement use. So sure, I can see the downvote as disagreeing with sensationalism, but I was contesting the suggestion that no funds dropped in that time. If it’s because I got spammy, sure… I assume most people don’t reread the other comments after the first time they go through, but I can stop.

For reference, target date funds are still usually good, but total stock index is always better in a ten year period, so whether they are actually worth it is questionable.

Not sure. I’m guessing interest rate stuff will mess with anything with bond holdings, so that probably had stuff to do with it. Other than that… I don’t know if I can convey a big enough shrug in text form.

Good point.

Yeah. Something doesn’t add up. The worst dip of what you mention is the blue chip large cap, but the curve you posted looks like VTINX or the vanguard 2030-2040 target date funds, not any of the funds you listed.

Target date funds are also supposed to be set and forget, but this looks like the curve from Vanguards 2030 through at least 2040 target date funds.

The 2030 target fund is still down 8.8% since that date.

All target date funds through vanguard tanked that year unless you have 2060 or later as the target. 2030 lost 25% and hasn’t yet recovered.

They likely were using a full retirement fund, like VTINX or Vanguard Target 2030 or something like that. All of them tanked in the end of 2021 up to target 2060. Even my shares in the Total Bond Index tanked then, and those are supposed to be as low risk as possible, literally.

Stop. The Vanguard retirement funds all did this if the target is before 2060. And those are invested in index funds by professionals. OP likely had the VTINX or a total bond fund, both of which did this that year and were recommended for during retirement. This is likely the more liquid portion of the portfolio, not the penny stock portion.

The close to retirement ones suffered that year. The 2030 target lost 25% in less than a year recently and hasn’t recovered. Ironically, the high risk ones have been less risky during COVID than the low risk ones.

Check the vanguard target retirement income fund (vtinx) and other similar funds. There was a dip in 2021 that absolutely destroyed a number of retirements, my patents included, despite being low risk options. Total bond index funds also suffered for some reason, and those are as low risk as you can get. Every other fund I have is doing great, but the ones that are supposed to be safe are not doing great.

But did Das Boo Schitt get a Michael Bay adaptation? Also… Why does Michael Bay own the rights to skibidi toilet now? What timeline did I wake up in?

Then why are you saying it’s incorrectly formatted? I’m directly backing its premise.

Except, usage defines language. If it didn’t, English wouldn’t exist. Therefore, usage is correct when people understand and use it.

True. Can we get it to 420 since we overshot 69?

I wanted to upvote this, but the score was too nice to change it…

Recalling data, communication. Two things humans are notoriously bad at…

And I wouldn’t call a human intelligent if TV was anything to go by. Unfortunately, humans do things they don’t understand constantly and confidently. It’s common place, and you could call it fake it until you make it, but a lot of times it’s more of people thinking they understand something.

LLMs do things confident that they will satisfy their fitness function, but they do not have the ability to see farther than that at this time. Just sounds like politics to me.

I’m being a touch facetious, of course, but the idea that the line has to be drawn upon that term, intelligence, is a bit too narrow for me. I prefer to use the terms Artificial Narrow Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence as they are better defined. Narrow referring to it being designed for one task and one task only, such as LLMs which are designed to minimize a loss function of people accepting the output as “acceptable” language, which is a highly volatile target. AGI or Strong AI is AI that can generalize outside of its targeted fitness function and continuously. I don’t mean that a computer vision neural network that is able to classify anomalies as something that the car should stop for. That’s out of distribution reasoning, sure, but if it can reasonably determine the thing in bounds as part of its loss function, then anything that falls significantly outside can be easily flagged. That’s not true generalization, more of domain recognition, but it is important in a lot of safety critical applications.

This is an important conversation to have though. The way we use language is highly personal based upon our experiences, and that makes coming to an understanding in natural languages hard. Constructed languages aren’t the answer because any language in use undergoes change. If the term AI is to change, people will have to understand that the scientific term will not, and pop sci magazines WILL get harder to understand. That’s why I propose splitting the ideas in a way that allows for more nuanced discussions, instead of redefining terms that are present in thousands of ground breaking research papers over a century, which will make research a matter of historical linguistics as well as one of mathematical understanding. Jargon is already hard enough as it is.