l23k4

Wow, you guys really think this is good?

Because of the same rules, German restaurants also get to pick and choose which reviews stay up. They can literally take down any specific reviews they like.

A restaurant that mostly gets 1 star reviews will still show up with 5 stars on Google maps, as they will simply delete the reviews with less than 5 stars as defamatory.

Here's a couple of examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1peujau/google_rev...

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/18z4shs/legal_thre...

https://www.reddit.com/r/frankfurt/comments/1lox7ha/bad_revi...

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1iiaco8/restaurant...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskGermany/comments/1ha7sxf/why_do_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1t613w7/it_was_fin...

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1l98608/threatenin...

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1sw34jc/can_you_ge...

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1sw34jc/can_you_ge...

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/10kmn66/writing_an...

tl;dr Germans are particularly bad at coming up with reasonable rules to handle these situations

That seems like an unreasonable interpretation of what I said, which was just pointing out the futility of the Swiss position. EU can impose its will at essentially zero cost no matter what the Swiss do.

The Israeli public largely supports this, given that Israel is a western democracy, it's not surprising that the state behaves in a way that matches the hearts and minds of its people.

I think the odds of a happy person being willing to put in the work to reach the positions those two notoriously unhappy individuals have reached are rather low.

I strongly suspect that the more leisurely rich are overrepresented among Aquanaut-wearers. It's a rather casual piece, popular among the St Barth/Tropez crowd.

The author is a LLM.

Half of the Romanians moved to other EU countries and then sent significant chunk of their earnings back home :)

This is a deeply dishonest characterization of the FCAS.

The EU will retaliate this time around and impose ruinous costs on Switzerland if it chooses to go through with this.

Unlike the Brits, the Swiss have absolutely no leg to stand on here. If EU closes the borders, the Swiss will literally die of hunger.

They're economically sterilizing themselves by starting a conflict with the EU at that point.

>"Mass immigration is your punishment for the British Empire" has a certain ideological appeal. But if you're a British person, you don't care about that. What matters is whether you'd rather live in London as it was in 2000 or London today. And I think the answer to that is obvious if your judgment isn't compromised. My parents went to visit London a year or two ago, and my mom was shocked by the decline in public order and standards, the ghettos, etc. This is a woman who lived in Bangladesh most of her life, and she came back telling me about the decline of London.

I walk around outside my home in the very heart of London: the street is full of Rolls Royces, pretty Russian and Ukrainian girls walk around carrying their Graff jewels and Kelly bags. Men still wear watches worth hundreds of thousands despite what the FT style section says.

What ghetto? Where is it? Everybody here is as rich as Croesus and very much a part of the same global jet set culture.

I'd guess there's a very high chance someone wearing an Aquanaut is having a better time than someone wearing a $700 Tissot or a $17 Casio, less of a difference between the latter two.

It's not telling better time, it's telling of a better time.

> And I'm saying wallstreet has a reputation of breaking the rules.

Among whom does wall street hold this reputation? Breaking which rules? How can that be, in an incredibly regulated industry where the government will try to put you in prison for just breathing? As they're doing to Andrew Left right now.

As far as I can tell, this is only a commonly held opinion among people whose primary source of knowledge on wall street is a DiCaprio movie. Rules are broken everywhere in the world, but nowhere do you have as many controls to prevent that as on wall street.

There's a reason why just about everyone with significant amounts of money trusts US financial infrastructure, fraud and rulebreaking is uncommon.

Given that India lacks a functioning judiciary, we might be waiting a while. Plenty of cases over 30 years old waiting for supreme court rulings.

No, all you can read into that is where they believe the fair value to be. If it landed in the middle, you'd obviously have to pick up a much larger delta in options given the liquidity issues on Indian markets.

>They were moving the market to suit their positions.

They were correcting a mispricing, not creating one.

I have! JS was engaged in standard arbitrage and did nothing wrong. SEBI is coming after them because JS being able to do what it was doing is deeply embarrassing.

>Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with calling out shit companies ran by shit people, that present a real danger to the world.

But you didn't call anybody out.

Why is nobody able to link this reporting? Google doesn't find it either.

> of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money

You claim this to have been engineered somehow

> Where do you see a conspiracy theory?

You are presenting a theory that an unidentified group of people is engaged in a conspiracy to change the rules of the major indices for corrupt reasons.

That's a conspiracy theory. It might be true, but so far nobody can come up with any evidence in support of it.

The simplest possible explanation is that the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs.

>Point 1. Corruption has penetrated the highest echelons of USAnian politics. The president is unabashed in his corruption and has corrupted (is corrupting) the financial regulators (I follow Molly White who has been particularly good on this)

Sure, but indices are really not a heavily regulated space. The government doesn't have any obvious, direct influence here.

But uh, do you genuinely believe that the Trump admin would pull this off without the story leaking? It's an incredibly leaky administration, now supposed to be exerting influence over the most leaky industry in the world.

>Point 2. Space-X is valuing itself at an astonishing value that is not anchored in its business activities

If SpaceX is overvaluing itself, they'll look really silly at IPO! This is a very strange complaint.

>Point 3. The purveyors of these IPOs have been doing their best to get the rules changed (because reasons blah blah blah), the change will mean that managed funds, if they follow their usual practice, will feel compelled to buy in at the offer price - a massive inflow of capital that will make many people incredibly rich.

According to whom? The consensus in serious financial medias seems to be that indices are doing the rule changes to avoid divergence. I've tried to look, but I can't find any reporting suggesting that the "purveyors of these IPOs" had anything to do with this.

These companies are already among the 20 biggest in the US, it's genuinely going to be a big problem for e.g. the S&P500 to keep them out.

>But these are very worrying times. Especially for the USA.

I agree! However, not everything that happens in the USA is related to Trump.

Yep, almost all of my comments questioning this conspiracy theory have been flagged, with many being set [dead] by them moderators.

And here's some rather more clueful analysis instead of what looks like AI-generated marketing blogspam:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-07-07/jan... (https://archive.fo/0PQ2E)

Incompetent SEBI went after Jane Street for closing an arb, what about it?

Why did you feel the need to post this disinformation? Do you get paid to spread these lies?

>Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.

The whole point of these indices is to represent the market, the rules are unsustainable if they cause too big of a divergence from that goal.

> The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules

Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption? Is it because this conspiracy also includes all of the news media?

> But in the face of such apparent malfeasance perhaps no longer

Do you have any sources to share in support of this claim of malfeasance?

> I want the indices to follow the same passive strategy they always have

Okay? But the debate has been specifically about getting rid of new rules introduced in recent decades as they're incompatible with the purpose of the indices in the current situation.

>of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.

Are you planning to substantiate this conspiracy theory in any way?

It's not my fault their conspiracy theory is awfully similar to popular long-running far-right conspiracy theories.

Where did I say I was refuting their claim? Why would you expect that?