TinyRick

> You get small piece of debris on a camera moving at mach 1 and it's going to look like something is moving at mach 1 with you, and somehow magically keeping up in strange ways before "zooming off" when it falls off the camera.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the testimonies provided under oath today do not match your description of a piece of debris on a camera/sensor. If you have not already watched the hearing I would recommend it.

> MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored.

Source(s)? I would love to read more about techs who have talked about these events.

Our understanding of physics is incomplete.

> What, then do we do with the eyewitness accounts?

Not only eyewitness accounts, but also recorded military footage (e.g. onboard cameras, FLIR sensors mentioned in the hearing). Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? And that the expensive, high-tech equipment recording the objects also failed in a way that showed something that wasn't actually there? That sounds much more frightening to me than the alternative explanation.

Thanks, will check this out

I've always found it amusing that people think humans would be any match for an NHI species that has technology capable of reaching our solar system.

In the US at least, I don't trust that the government will do anything meaningful preemptively - they don't have a great track record (with regards to climate change) in recent decades.

Instead, it will likely be the insurance companies that dictate how/if things are rebuilt when catastrophes strike. Rebuilding won't be an option when no insurer will issue a policy for houses, office buildings, manufacturing, etc due to the expected future consequences of climate change. It's already starting to happen in Florida with multiple major insurance companies pulling out of the state.

Unfortunately, politics (in the USA at least) are too broken to lead these types of changes. It would seem we need to first fix our political system (e.g. remove monetary incentives from politics, repeal Citizens United, etc.) before we can meaningfully tackle climate change.

That has not been my experience in modern corporate America.

These states follow prior appropriation doctrine for water rights, which states that upstream owners can use/divert water for "beneficial use". Building a dam to intentionally stop the flow to downstream consumers is not a beneficial use.

Wouldn't the correct answer be $250k due to the FDIC insurance?

> Surely more bank failures would be seen as worse for the economy than inflation.

I disagree with this. Also keep in mind that the Fed has a dual mandate (price stability and maximum employment); they aren't guardians of the overall economy nor are the responsible for ensuring that banks don't fail.

> Personally, I'd like to see Congress take more action to reduce inflation.

100% agree

Lots of uncertainty in the press conference following the interest rate announcement. Seems like the Fed is preparing for the possibility of more restrictive actions in the future, but is waiting for more data to see if such actions are needed. I expect the market to place a lot more weight on data released over the next few weeks.

> They weren't making risky investments.

These banks were not hedging their duration risk, which means that they were in fact making risky investments. Their failures lie solely on the bank management and fund managers.

> some breakthrough technology

Turns out few, if any, had any breakthrough or worthwhile technology

FWIW I'm not suggesting that the Fed should or will continue to hike rates. I think they are going to pause rate hikes in the near term and wait for more data to ensure inflation does not become entrenched. The parent comment I replied to said "the Fed is not going to cut rates" which I agree with - but I also don't think they are going to hike rates either.

I can't reply to your most recent comment rcme, but it sounds like you are agreeing with me? Yes, if inflation is at 2% then the Fed would be incentivized to reduce rates, but....it's not, it's over 5% and has been for some time.

It also means prices are higher. A significant portion of the population lives on fixed incomes or don't have the means to switch to a higher paying job, and were getting destroyed in the high inflationary environment.

Why does the Fed want to keep rates as low as possible? Their mandates are to provide price stability and maximize employment, not keep rates as low as possible. Unemployment is very low so they are doing well in terms of maximizing employment, but inflation is still running hot, so the logical thing for them to do is keep rates high enough to stave off continued inflationary pressures.

Spot on. Listen to the language the Fed uses and this is the clear answer, recently they have been saying things like "we still have a lot of work to do on inflation", "the banking sector is resilient", etc.

The company is also in a much better financial position than it was pre-meme. They took advantage of their insanely valued share price in mid-2021 and performed an at-the-market equity offering which allowed them to pay off loans and improve their balance sheet significantly.

But it has a smoking jacket!!! Only 2% have that trait! /s

This article is about unseizable digital property, which is an important distinction.

I'm curious if he thinks his "unseizable" digital assets will be worth anything in the event where the US is illegally seizing assets from citizens (which seems to be his reason for "investing" so heavily in digital assets - due to past family history). In an event like that, I'd much rather have food and fresh water supplies than some NFTs.

I've been wearing sunglasses when driving at night for about a year now. Without them I'm basically blinded.

If anyone is worried about a potential SIM swap attack due to this breach, you can order a new SIM card free of charge at https://fi.google.com/ordersim

> People could easily kick every oil lobbyist out.

Please explain.

> When will those responsible be held accountable for helping to advance the destruction of climate and the immense loss of life and property that climate change has brought?

When it is no longer profitable to destroy the climate.

The voters in the 70s and 80s did, sure. But as this article explains, those voters were withheld crucial information that could have informed their voting choices.

2010 was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and in the past decade+ I (and many others) have not voted for pro-oil/coal/fracking/etc candidates. Yet we're the ones that are (and will continue to) live with the consequences of Big Oil's actions from decades ago.

Problem is that Big Oil pays those politicians more.

I'm curious, in what ways do you see yourself as being worse off now versus prior to having taken psychedelics?

Sad story, condolences to all who knew Otto. Something that stuck out to me from that article was that his floormates were aware of his condition prior to his death and were worried for his and their own safety, but weren't sure what to do. I imagine the legality of the substance played a role in that; they were likely conflicted as to whether to seek medical/police help which would almost guarantee legal issues for Otto, or do nothing and risk his well-being.