Yeah, that's the counter-intuitive part: Joe Random is more reliable. It's like asking "Is your opponent for President less reliable than a random?" when wondering about information they give you.
Sure the opponent is smarter, more well educated, and less likely to be wrong. But he's your opponent. So maybe don't listen to him if he says "I saw the stats and you're not going to win. It's probably best to save your money"
The journalists are suckering you. And if you want to avidly defend the suckering, then go ahead and fit this siphon to your bank account. No no, don't worry, it's a great idea. Bloomberg News said so.
I disagree. Joe Random is going to be all over the fucking place. He's going to know about a few small items that he happens to have expertise in, and he's going to be a shitshow on all the crap he's just spouting about, and there's going to be no way to tell the two. That's not reliability; it's the opposite of reliability.
Hey, believe what you will. Your disagreement is desirable. Just so long as whatever index fund you're in sells that SuperMicro.
Let the market choose between us. It is the strongest competition of world views. May the best man win.
It's true that there's variance and I elided a model I talk about in real life for simplicity but as a mathematical analogy, your opponent has high bias low variance and the random has high variance low bias. You pick the former, I'll pick something else.
And may the universe decide who prospers. So far it's looking good for me.
In Aus the media is almost all either owned by Murdoch or held hostage by the government who cuts the budget any time they do honest reporting so there is definitely some value in democratic "rando" media imo
Making money is all the sweeter this way because someone else is losing it to me.
Why such a coward? If you get your kicks through other people's pain, just do it direct.