Game Stopped? (Live congressional hearing on GameStop)
youtube.com
youtube.com
The same mumbling paid off clown show we could've heard from in 1950 or 1850. Yes, more diverse, but aside from demographics, the same people are still in Congress year after year and are clearly not fluent in the modern world.
So Congress is like the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B [0] and that might be good because if it was full of Ship A people they would just be stomping over each other. and if it was Ship C people we’d be minmaxing and micromanaging.
[0] https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_...
American exceptionalism intrinsically relies on comparing itself to the worst countries in the world and being ignorant of other developed nations.
There’s certainly many flaws, but it’s not luck that we’ve avoided coups for a couple hundred years. Seems pretty well designed and built on lots of previous successes.
My comment wasn’t so much saying US is best, but just pointing out that having idiots elected and futzing about in DC seems like not such a bad idea.
This guy just reeks of deceptive corporate speak.
He even looks like Martin Shkreli.
Here is a decent paper on the topic of n-sigma events: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.5672.pdf
Other recent black swans:
- Texas freezing over - Beirut explosion
It seems as though these "black swan" events are happening more and more rapidly.
RobinHood CEO didn't give a single straight answer. He deflected or ignored 100% of the questions asked.
Not sure what the public wins from this hearing. Someone please educate me?
Company person: <canned statement>
Congresswoman: I need a yes or no
Company person: <continues canned statement>
Congresswoman: I do not have time for this, I need a yes or no
Company person: <continues a canned statement>
Congresswoman: The gentlemen will be denied further comment (or something like this)
The interaction was like watching NPCs
Congressman: Would you buy GME at $45
Gill: Yes
Congressman: ....
Bigfuckingvalue has the best sound and he's just a "youtuber".
Let me rewrite that sentence for you: "Bigfuckingvalue has the best sound because he's in a profession where having a good home audio setup for teleconferences is critical to success."
(I've never done any of this myself, but I've heard from several people that the #1 most crucial investment you can make as a youtuber is in improving your audio setup.)
Most important for podcasts or YouTube is sound and it is the thing everyone recommends you deal with first.
There are individual exceptions, but by and large, things happen in the world because it's making someone money or sex.
His “gaming” chair is probably the most expensive, and also worth it. Quotes only because they’re good chairs that should sell even without the gaming branding.
I'm quite happy with Congress not spending money on not-cost-effective-for-essentisl-legislative-needs equipment in members home for what amounts to a mostly-cosmetic improvement in temporary operations.
> Bigfuckingvalue has the best sound and he's just a "youtuber".
Why is this surprising? A YouTuber is someone for whom digital A/V production values is central.
Anybody know what's up with spez's left eye?
I have no idea why that’s the case. There’s good competition on the market, dozens of companies are making laptops. Technical issues are solved too; smartphone cameras have similar form factor yet modern ones are awesome.
Some streams are bad but have nothing to do with connection speed.
Stupid people in large groups do not understand nuance. I would use more hesitation before providing them ammo.
...I don't think video is the issue, the audio is so bad, and some people are using laptop webcams/mic. You have to up the professionalism. And it often isn't internet speed, it is bad hardware, WiFi, etc.
Very interesting is this interview yesterday with the Interactive Brokers chairman (5min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPYuIRVfew
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?Event...
Some interesting highlights to me:
Everyone's starting out with "I went to high school and am a normal person and love my partner and I was an underdog" which is really striking when it's such a strong pattern.
Reddit's CEO describes reddit's governance:
> Reddit additionally uses a governance structure akin to a federal democracy, where the aforementioned policies and teams represent the federal government, and the communities themselves represent states.
This is a weird description of what seems more like a federal dictatorship, where the aforementioned policies and teams represent the federal government (a dictatorship), and the communities themselves represent states (smaller dictatorships).
> We have since analyzed the activity in WallStreetBets to determine whether bots, foreign agents, or other bad actors played a significant role. They have not. In every metric that we checked, the activity in WallStreetBets was well within normal parameters, and its moderation tools were working as expected.
I'd love to know what "within normal parameters" amounts to.
From Robinhood's CEO:
> I want to be clear at the outset: any allegation that Robinhood acted to help hedge funds or other special interests to the detriment of our customers is absolutely false and market-distorting rhetoric.
It strikes me that everyone believing (or believing that everyone else believed...) the conspiracy theory certainly hurt the GME price more than if everyone just knew that it had a relatively boring reason. When robinhood halted things and conspiracy theories multiplied and went viral, the subsequent price fall might have been at least to some degree an own goal. The virality that moved the stock up is the same virality that told everyone the game was (extra) rigged against them.
From the director of financial regulation studies at the Cato institute:
> The fact that GameStop traded temporarily, and perhaps still trades, above fair estimates of the company’s value is not, by itself, a reason for concern. Stock prices move in and out of alignment all the time, and markets are no strangers to bubbles. If a company is valued by the market differently than a review of its “fundamentals” suggests, it might indicate that the analysis is missing relevant information about a company’s prospects or it might indicate that the company’s stock price is due for a correction.
This seems disingenuous to me in a system where "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" is an accepted truism.