fach

Branding nationalizing companies as “citizens control” is quite the spin. Chinese citizens surely own the means of production, right?

History, particularly in the last 30 years where political polarization has significantly increased:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election...

Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.

What's comical is the US commerce secretary literally says this out loud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsyyGHuPR88

How would running fiber make Ethernet obsolete? Physical medium and framing on the wire are fairly orthogonal.

> Such that the new status quo will be no enforcement at all.

Or conditional enforcement, say for those who don't buy enough Trump meme coin.

The nuance here, based on the EO, is rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law.

If you combine this EO with the Supreme Court immunity decision, there may very well be a situation where a rank and file employee acts illegally based on the president's interpretation of the law. This would create a situation where there is a legal challenge about whether a member of the executive branch should be granted the same immunity privileges as the president since they are an extension of the president. You can imagine where things will head if we end up on the wrong side of this decision.

> First, law enforcement can defy the President in order to follow the law or court orders (which they are required to do).

Any law enforcement officer defying the president or attempting to enforce a court order against the executive branch can and will be removed by the president. You say "which they are required to do" but again, the executive branch is the enforcement mechanism when they don't which is at the discretion of the president.

> Second, enforcement isn't always through law enforcement. If the courts decide that an agency can do X, then they can go ahead and do X. No FBI involvement needed. Same if the issue ends up being something the state execute on.

I have no idea what this means. The courts can certainly decide whether or not the executive branch has broken the law. But again, there is no enforcement mechanism in the judiciary branch.

> That's because he was never charged. Why was he never charged? It's kind of hard to claim insurrection when nobody was armed and didn't actually have the ability to commit insurrection.

He was impeached, for a second time, in the House for "incitement of an insurrection" and acquitted in the Senate. Are you conveniently forgetting this?

> This isn't true at all. > > The main way the President is stopped is through the courts, which is already underway, but Trump has actually prevailed in several decisions (e.g. right to cancel government contracts, right to fire probationary employees) while blocked other (e.g. birthright citizenship).

It is absolutely true. The judiciary has no mechanism to _enforce_ laws. Enforcement belongs to the executive branch. Therefore, if the judiciary makes a decision, and the president chooses to not follow the court's order, there is little the courts can do. It can certainly threaten fines and contempt of court to executive officials and even the president, but the president has control over both the DOJ/law enforcement to carry out the ruling as well as having blanket pardon powers.

> Impeachment is a very high bar which is usually reserved for serious violations of the law or process. We aren't anywhere close to that.

The current sitting president lead an insurrection against the United States and was not convicted in Congress. We've already crossed the threshold and gone well past the point of Congress acting to hold the executive branch accountable. Now given Musk's threats of financially backing primary candidates against dissenters, there is no incentive to act.

Too late.

Someone certainly can "Facebook clone" OpenAI. Google, Meta and Apple all are more well capitalized than OpenAI, operate at a larger scale and are actively training and publishing their own models.

It solves a class of hijacks, where an autonomous system announces a prefix it is not authorized to announce. This is typically the operator error use case or uneducated bad actor use case. What it does not cover is if an autonomous system crafts an announcement containing the valid origin autonomous system in which case you would need a mechanism to validate the entire AS_PATH itself. ROA is only concerned about the origin in the AS_PATH.

This is only for half-duplex ethernet communication so no one apart from some archaic systems.

Checkout out Edison: https://meetedison.com/

Agreed. With the recent Taylor Swift fiasco, if she charged $2k a ticket, she would be viewed as some nightmare of capitalism. Instead, she gets to hide under the guise of ticketmaster since she sold tickets at a lower dollar cost only to be resold at a market clearing price. I have anecdata to say some people won the initial lottery and paid a few hundred for floor seats when the large majority needed to pay the market clearing price on the secondary market. I'd posit this is the real purpose of ticketmaster's monopoly: In exchange for their exclusivity agreements with large venues and artists, thus filling stadiums and providing kick backs, they allow themselves to become the target of venom from the larger market instead of the artists themselves.

This isn’t true in my experience across a few FAANGs. And promotion is very slow on both tracks once you get to terminal level + 1.

Aren’t the order of operations here incorrect? They were experiencing a lack of deposits due to VC pullback due to the interest rate rise, while depositors did not cut spending. This led to a liquidity crunch where they needed to sell discounted bonds to fill the gap. When the gap was conveyed to shareholders, the run began. If this is true, isn’t marking to market providing feedback about a potential liquidity crunch much earlier, ideally before the crunch even begins?

Again, what bailout? It seems like unless people are brought up on federal charges, you would be unsatisfied with the result.

> If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again

Apart from the arguing about the definition of gambling here applied to the SVB situation, no one is going to be able to give SVB another dime after this. They no longer exist. This is the exact opposite of risk free.

If the Fed provides a backstop for uninsured deposits, all banks have lost their legitimacy? They are not bailing out shareholders.

A child-like regulatory question: Why aren’t HTM portfolios for retail banks frequently marked to market? Wouldn’t this force more accurate accounting in the event a bank needed to sell bonds in a capital crunch?

Can we not step back and instead address the practical implementation challenges robjs raised?

There has been a long history of Huawei stealing IP as well as generating less than useful drafts/standards in the IETF. There are very real reasons to judge this book by its cover.

It depends on how you define fiduciary responsibility. If it’s a point in time, transactional view, yes. If it’s a long term view of maximizing share holder value over time, not necessarily.

Did the Spanish flu not evolve into our less lethal, seasonal flu?

Is it? If the major cloud providers are siphoning off IPv4 space to create a monopoly, and 2nd tier cloud providers are raising prices due to the cost of IPv4 acquisition due to scarcity, there’s a real chance market forces migrate customers away from the 2nd tier as their costs rise.

It is but you need to shop at the outside edges of your market and pay the labor cost of making most meals from scratch, both of which make nutrition more expensive.

What's the strategy (both logistically and financially) for dealing with the 8-10 year maturity cycle of the trees? Also, I'd imagine it provides some moat for preventing new competition into the market.

> This smells like sour apples from an employee who focused more on their plans to take down their employer than their actual job.

The story didn't read as "sour apples" to me but rather an employee pointing out evidence that contradicts the "two strikes" policy Zuckerberg explained at the company Q&A. It's tough to write that off as "Facebook isn't perfect".

"BGP is a liability to society" seems a bit polarizing. Any system when told do to stupid stuff by a human via configuration will usually do stupid stuff. The right answer isn't to replace the underlying system.

I’d imagine at this point they are heavily peered in most markets, driven by said free users, so there isn’t a significant opex hit bandwidth -wise. Space/power opex plus network/compute hardware capex probably dominates their spend.