kawhah

Out of interest did you make the same arguments about Martin Shkreli (arrogant and unlikable child of immigrants who did a much smaller scale scam similar to SBFs but where everyone was eventually repaid in full) and about Andrew Auernheimer (annoying and racist child of a working class single mother who performed a fairly successful hack without any personal gain) and about Brian Salcedo (working class, non-college-educated guy from the Midwest who carried out a fairly basic hack of a corporation attempting to profit financially but with no realistic chance of success)?

Just asking, because all three of those guys did several years of federal time.

I somewhat agree with what you say about prison, but I'm not sure we should start with the charismatic and media-savvy child of politically connected Stanford professors, who had plenty of opportunities to do well and live a full life without stealing anything or cheating anyone.

SBF could simply have chosen to plead guilty, then this would have been roughly what happened.

> chief risk officers, CEOs, and COOs were the fall guys over the failures of their respective banks

only two things wrong with this claim:

1. no CROs, CEOs or COOs were judicially punished in any way for the failure of their banks.

2. CROs and CEOs were clearly responsible for those failures. That's literally their whole job for which they were typically paid 7 to 9 figures annually.

Minecraft perhaps gives us an opportunity to adjust our experience of what a metaverse is, based on how it works and how it is used.

Unlike Second Life, everyone doesn't play in one single instance. But there are multiple different notions of replication and simultaneity between players. For example, there are lots of different servers, some with persistent universes, but many with unlimited replicable throwaway universes. Some shared universes are highly coordinated for specific purposes. People play using each other random seeds thereby using parallel universes with identical starting configurations.

Arguably this is simply how artificial experiences in information space should happen, and the notions of things like monolithic instances or scarcity of 'land' are simply carry-overs from physical space.

No, Roblox is by far the most successful metaverse along pretty much any reasonable metric.

If it doesn't conform to your ideas about what a metaverse is, or something that Vannevar Bush or Neal Stephenson pictured, that's a reflection on how your own prejudices don't match reality.

It was totally a risky choice for companies in the 1990s and early 2000s to put all their web stuff onto Linux on commodity hardware instead of proprietary Unix or Windows servers. Many did it when their website being up was totally mission critical. Lots did it on huge server farms. It paid off very quickly but it's erasing history to suggest that it didn't require huge amounts of guts, savvy and agility to even attempt it.

What were you hoping to get from the customer replying?

It seems perfectly plausible that 95% of the customers of an app or online don't want to enter into an email conversation about the service - they just want it to be usable without need for further communication, and they aren't interested in getting involved in your wider sales strategy either.

Good rebuttal. The person who did the peer-reviewed statistical research is wrong because Wikipedia describes their discipline as related to sociology.

Actually, it's super controversial, even among Christians. If it is documented through the Bible, that's not evinced by your link (to a conservative Evangelical website), which only cites Acts and John, two very closely related parts of the Bible. And neither of those says anything about the resurrection of those who are not saved happening because of Jesus's sacrifice.

You seem to have wandered off the justification of God's behavior as part of a coherent mission, and you are simply describing the characteristics of God which you believe in, but which many people with other beliefs have cogently described as illogical, cruel or anti-humanistic, in sci-fi terms.

1. ok, so the word 'kinda' is not an essential part of the doctrine, got it.

2. 'profound and incomprehensible suffering' - what is Jesus supposed to have suffered which is different from many other humans who have been betrayed, tortured and killed? Whatever you think it is, it appears to be extra-biblical. The Gethsemane quote is just "my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death". Allowing for loss in translation this is an expression of suffering well within human experience.

3. 'the vast majority do beleive that there are effects for everyone, regardless of belief in this life or the next' Sorry, no. The vast majority of modern Christians belong to churches for which 'sola fide' is not just an essential part of their theology, but the foundation of their existence.

That guy's job is pushing psychiatric medicine and techniques on society though, right?

'ego-death and dimensional transcendence' and 'lots of paranoia and distress' just sound like different framings of what could be remarkably similar psychic states.

If the goal is to evolve an entity which can pursue light independently, why compromise this goal by "relocat[ing] an entity that was very far from the light to be much closer to it"?

And if the goal is just to allow as many entities as possible to enjoy the light, why not relocate them all to be close to it? Why not save all of them into the next generation?

Which part of the following is not believed by most Christians?

> That God kinda-became human to "sacrifice" himself (with no loss, got up 3 days later to live forever, nothing was sacrificed) in order to forgive the sins of people, but only if they believe it

Ok, so the middle-brow infotainment psych blogger's essay is valid, but meta-analyses are 'fundamentally flawed' because 'different SSRIs affect people differently'?

This news will probably come as a huge surprise to the psychiatric epidemiologists who carried out the peer-reviewed research that Alexander mangles! They probably thought all SSRIs were exactly the same!

I don't think Scott Alexander's page is a 'relatively objective resource'. He is, as you point out, a 'psychiatrist who regularly prescribes them' and also used to take them. It is full of special pleading where he relitigates extremely high quality meta-analyses to overlay his own opinion:

> That is, there are a bunch of tests that ask you a bunch of questions about your feelings and symptoms, and you can add them up and call that a “depression score”, and if you do that, antidepressants have an effect size of 0.3. Or you can ask patients “how depressed do you feel on a scale of 1-10”, and if you do that, antidepressants have an effect size of 0.5. I think the latter is better, because it’s what we actually care about (how patients are doing), and the tests are kind of dumb and ask about a lot of symptoms most people realistically aren’t experiencing.

(In other words, if you ask a patient with depression how they are feeling, and they say 'great', and then you ask them questions like "are you managing to shower every day", or "did you think about suicide a lot this week" and they give the same answers as a depressed person, they are cured!)

Does weird napkin math which clearly can't be justified:

> For those people, they will have a large real effect size of 1.0, plus a large placebo effect size of 0.9, for a very large total effect size of 1.9.

(How do you get to add the placebo effect back on to the postulated 'large real effect size'??)

Says that extremely common side effects are 'very unusual':

> It can be any or all of decreased libido, difficulty orgasming, difficulty getting an erection, difficulty enjoying sex, or decreased sensation in the genitals. These usually go away a few weeks to months after stopping the medication, but in rare cases they might linger for months or years, and there are a few people who say their sexual side effects never went away. These cases are very unusual and still not well understood.

(Note that in the same article he points out that, in general, the medication only improves mood or anxiety while you keep taking it, when you stop taking it you still have the depression or other conditions. So the fact that sexual disfunction usually gets resolved after stopping taking the medication isn't much relief. For most people SSRIs will never lead to a steady state where you are stable with regards to your mental health issue and also are able to enjoy sex.)

Makes armchair psych connection between well-studied things which are not the same:

> When everything goes right, SSRIs blunt negative but not positive emotions. But many people even at reasonable doses will notice that their most extreme positive emotions become a little less extreme (this may be part of the problem with sex).

(Difficulty getting aroused or orgasming or feeling in the mood for sex is not the same as "most extreme positive emotions becoming a little less extreme")

> Is this actually true?

GlaxoSmithKline paid the Department of Justice $3 billion for covering up evidence of this while promoting their SSRI to under-18s. They paid the fine in 2012, 11 years ago. The medical trial was done in 1994-1998.

In 2003, the (UK medicines regulator) MHRA obtained full clinical data from Glaxo, and based on that data forming robust evidence of significant increase in suicidality, both the MHRA and the FDA immediately said that paroxetine couldn't be prescribed to under-18s.

The UK govt rules on how to report medical trials were changed in relation to what happened with the publication of the Glaxo Paxil trials.

GSK paid around $1 billion in the 2000-2010s to settle several hundred lawsuits, including many many suicides and several family annihilations.

The main investigative news TV show in the UK, Panorama, reported on this in 4 shows between 2002 and 2007.

The Boston Globe did significant investigative work on this around 2005, including a book published by their reporter.

In view of that, your question comes across as at best, uninformed and naive.

An order of magnitude faster sounds unimportant. Is all the time spent by researchers sitting around waiting for 0.4s for a paper to download really an issue?

Because social media is at an inflection point. That is of interest.

And the small pieces of signal related to that are of interest, because while incomplete and noisy, they are the best indication we have of what's next.

Edit you work for Discord my friend surely you can see that something is happening here?

This seems to be a key element of Twitter's success that Musk does not understand.

Much of the utility of Twitter was that it provided a record of all sorts of public communications, from automated updates about a museum being closed, to weird jokes that went viral across different social networks, to a rambling thread about a sex worker's trip to Miami that was made into a movie, to updates from people who were near the epicentre of earthquakes, to resignation statements from prominent politicians.

People like Musk who spend all day on Twitter might plausibly pay for it. But part of the reason for that is because everyone not on Twitter could see that important things happened there, and everyone who was on it got to feel like they got to be part of the first draft of history.

If you try and research internet drama (including internet drama of wider import) from a few years ago, you simply run into the impossibility of seeing embedded tweets w/ replies or accessing whole threads.

Mastodon has around 2 million monthly active users.

If MS come up with significant technicalities or challenges to the amount due, the IRS will have to choose between litigating each one of them, which both costs them money and involves the risk of losing in court, or coming to an out-of-court agreement with MS.

Obviously if MS don't have anything that won't get laughed out of court, they shouldn't get much of a reduction. If your challenge to your tax bill doesn't involve anything where the rules are hard to interpret and precedent has not been set, you also won't. (If it does, your tax affairs are probably much more complicated than the average citizen. Which is obviously true for Microsoft.)

Worth bearing in mind too that the number might be an optimistic headline figure which has been rounded up in various ways by the IRS, to make themselves look tough, and to encourage MS to settle.

I don't think you've successfully checked any facts.

The GP correctly and idiomatically described a tax deal between RoI and Apple as a 'sweetheart' deal. This is not a legal term of art. The fact that Ireland won its court case and is facing an appeal does not change the fact that something took place which exactly meets the commonly understood definition of a sweetheart deal.

I think you hit on the right answer.

The justifications given above don't really make sense - "how would you know when to call Sydney" or "the sun being overhead at 10PM would feel strange". They are just rationalizations of a system that we're used to.

But everywhere around the world, people want the date to change at a time when most things are closed and most people are asleep - which coincides with night-time for obvious reasons. This is effectively more important than having the date change at the same time for all of us.

Sounds fine.

The GP's estimate is out by almost an order of magnitude.

the point is that discarding lumps of metal in space is not wasteful, since it would require much more material brought into orbit to make them useful than to replace them if discarded.

It is not true that central banks "frequently" settle balances between each other by transferring gold. This is an event rare enough that it would typically be reported in financial newspapers if it happened.

I don't think I'll be retaining you as my tax advisor.