gottareply2020

'and take notes' would be my follow-up to the article. Unless you've got a photographic memory, taking notes forces you to:

1. map/filter/reduce what you're reading for easy reference later, and 2. add your own observations/opinions/connections in real-time

But how would the gov't handle installing all the back-doors?

Normally the US Fed has the following four tools at their disposal: the discount rate, reserve requirements, open market operations, and interest on reserves.

But now due to a very florid interpretation of the CARES Act [0], the US Fed has decided it is legal to buy both corporate debt and stocks[1].

This helps explain why the market is on such a bull run. The Fed has said they will be bailing out 401ks. The republicans (who would normally abhor this type of fiscal overreach) are delighted and the democrats don't know enough to read the writing on the wall.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-18/fed-se... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevincoldiron/2020/07/18/the-fe...

It’s accessing the chat data. If a bad actor could access incoming chats from a major broker’s PT/Swaps desk, a great deal of money could be made.

Found the Sicilian...

"It is also a big chunk of what corporate chief executive officers ... do". This is a small example of how most of Mr. Levine's writing is reductive to the point of being crude.

Executives are allowed to advocate for their companies. But only with information that has already been publicly disclosed. Don't believe me? How did the SEC feel about Elon Musk tweeting non-public information about his public company?

Mr. Levine is correct that this action by short sellers is legal. But that part of his analogy is wrong. He could have ended the analogy with "That's like half of financial television." However he chose to add on a point that is not applicable to the situation.

For a long time I enjoyed Mr. Levine's writings. Until I started to read his opinions on topics in which I have domain knowledge. At which point I realized his writing lack nuance and offers analogies that feel cut & dry but are anything but.

I realize this is true of many opinion writers. But Mr. Levine enjoys a great deal of notoriety for opinions that lack sophistication & rigor.

I once interviewed fresh out of college for a tech job at a big shop. When the interviewer got to the puzzle questions, they prefaced with ‘And be honest if you’ve heard it before. We want to get one you haven’t heard.’

Seven puzzles later of me saying, “yes, I’ve heard that one” and giving an short description indicating that I understood the solution, the interviewer became visibly upset/annoyed.

And so when they asked the 8th question I suddenly ‘didn’t know this one.’ The interviewer was delighted. Of course I did know it already but pretended to work my way through it.

Got the offer, didn’t take it because that interviewer would’ve been my boss’ boss.

Indeed

But did you see this latest article I just read? We’re so close!!

"that's a textbook example of how not to blow the whistle and be seen as credible."

Considering that the last 2 years is full of whistle blowers that acted credibly and saw nothing happen, I doubt she cared about the larger optics. The data manger was probably more concerned with an immediate, clear response to users of the data.

Abuse of power is important to curtail. If public officials are falsifying public comments, that matters. And to many American citizens, the truth still matters.

As for your actual premise, ‘the comments didn’t matter’, the rest of your comment invalidates your premise. Because if the comments did not matter, then the FCC would feel no need to fake the result.

What you mean to say is, ‘the comments would not effect the outcome of the FCC’s decision.’ And we can have a proper opinionated debate as to whether that is true. But the comments clearly ‘matter’.

Llyod’s of London released a report in May 2013 on the potential effects of a significant Coronal Mass Ejection (CME). The projected costs were 0.6 - 2.6 Trillion USD.

https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-risk-insight/risk-reports/li...

As other comments have said, the biggest pain would be the availability of replacement small transformers.

The reason for staying at home in the US is to prevent overwhelming hospitals and more people dying. It was a drastic measure to make up for a delayed response and unpreparedness.

In a given town, X people will contract the virus. Y of those will die of complications. Z of those people will die without hospitalization. So if you keep the rate of people contracting the virus under a rate of Z people, you can avoid EXTRA deaths due to overwhelming the hospitals.

Had the response in the US been early and holistic, it’s possible we could have avoided national stay at home orders and instead used social distancing to avoid overwhelming the hospitals. But the nation didn’t. So to avoid MORE deaths, sty at home orders were issued.

Again, to repeat, the reason for staying home is to prevent overwhelming hospitals and more people dying. The same amount of people will die (roughly) whether we stay at home or not.

And it’s not just 80 year olds. I’ve seen more 30 year olds on ventilators than I ever need to see again.