Layke1123

Is writing dismissively of capitalism not OK? Can you make the argument that capitalism was and is always a force of good in the world? Is plutocracy considered a good and righteous thing?

While cute, it misses the point. If I say a car is coming, it is then up to the person to decide whether they step into the street or not. This is not a rhetorical argument.

Challenger? What's your point? That Russia didn't beat the US into space? I thought the west at least accepted that fact. Or do you just have to believe the US is ALWAYS "superior"?

They will think its justified, just like the masses will justify taking all the hoarded wealth. Fairly distributing capital and power is the only reasonable solution in a world that is so obviously deterministic.

If our attention is better spent elsewhere, why then did you spend effort and attention reading it and then trying to relate anti-capitalist rhetoric here? Is it possible that you have an overly attached fondness to the term capitalism and can't handle any rebuke of the term?

You can be larger than life in the US, you just can't be larger than the US military industrial complex or capitalism.

Because they risk running of being short squeezed in those stocks as well? Last time I check, big money isn't exactly throwing itself at airlines, mobile areas other than Android or iOS, and cinemas, even though two of those are bound to pick up later this year once covid is over and Black Berry is in talks with Baidu, which you can't ignore.

The big guys know all this, only they were hoping to short, make a profit, and then reinvest down the road when things picked back up, making even more money. WSB just capitalized on their strategy and now that they are losing, they are throwing a fit.

You just litigated the point. Saying the election was stolen versus you felt like the election was stolen are two completely different things. Regardless, if there is overwhelming proof that something is considered to be true by evidence you can audit and review, straight up denying it is indeed grounds to call into question your ability to speak truth.

Sure, not listing a stock is entirely different than only allowing a user to sell a listed stock.

I believe this is different because the SEC is involved, and if the SEC involved decides to rule that a broker cannot limit what stocks can be bought or sold because that would break the legal definition of what a brokerage is.

Does anyone know the law well enough to know if this is indeed a violation of any statutes?

He is exactly right. The powers that be (dark money) have long sought to remain in control of their subjects. Just because we don't have monarchies doesn't mean we don't have a few elite who few themselves as rightful directors and owners other all things on Earth.

They have manipulated markets through various institutions and making knowledge so hard to come by without going into massive debt in order to maintain their elevated status.

In their arrogance though, they thought they could reverse the trend of the democratization of their power to the masses, and have literally tried to move heaven and earth in order to remain in power and reverse the trend.

My curious position is I think they are realizing that the trend is irreversible, that power eventually will always diffuse to the masses eventually as no system is perfect, there will always be leaky abstractions, and I have no doubt they have a nuclear option in their back pockets to try and quell the massive shift of power that seems inevitable at this point. Question is, what is that nuclear option?

It's not incitement to call a child pedophile a child pedophile unless you approve of said child pedophile. It's really quite simple.

Maybe the simple solution you are looking for is that lies should not be considered free speech in the same way that false advertising and fraud is considered illegal in the land of the first amendment. Food for thought.

Does Facebook use AWS servers with TOC? Thats how. Parler is free to build it. With their own servers and own physical network if they want to. The fact that they can't is the market in action no?

My apologies. It's just so frustrating to see a post like his that does nothing to add to the conversation. I will try to be better in the future about constructing my argument in a better form.

Anytime I read about a male being scared of patriarchy talk, I automatically assume you are a very fragile beta who needs coddling. Grow a pair.

Is this really where we are on Hacker News? The brightest minds on the internet can't even agree on systemd or other systems without coming to a sound conclusion? Now wonder tech is so fragmented.

I would be really interested in reading about why & and * were used as the symbols for pointers when C was originally conceived. Can you share a link or point me in the right direction for why that is? Please and thank you!

Can anyone explain to me why I am being downvoted for this? It was not a direct assault, only a statement to try to show deficiency in an argument. If it needs to be edited to seem such as, please let me know how it could be better worded if you see merit in the argument.

Strangers mocking you from afar is different than your own family viewing you as an outcast and evil for not following a religious dictum. You are intentionally trying to not see the details because it's in the details that it matters. Walking into a train or an office with a speedo on will not make you an outcast in your circles. Not wearing a hijab in certain Muslim cultures will, specifically your family. It will lead to tension and conflicts and shunning. It is not free of consequences in a much stronger way than walking into a train with just a speedo on in western cultures and you KNOW it.

Why are there so many people on this website willing to bend over backwards for their employers shoving cookies down our throats? Is it because they pay so much money that you don't care what happens to others as long as you get yours?

What you fail to take into account is following through on your logical conclusions.

Women who choose to wear hijabs aren't without consequences even in western societies because they have social reprocusions levied against them if the don't wear hijabs. It isn't like they are truly free to make that decision.

Do you not legally cheat on your significant other? I'd imagine you are a cheater too.

Beautiful. People who think the world runs on money forget the people behind it sometimes. The world runs on those few, and that is a problem when only the few have it. Its not our job through violent revolution to bring about that change in distribution, but to find ways to help people achieve for themselves that level of equality. Bright future indeed!

Brilliant!