lesuorac

Idk it makes sense to me.

Like a lot of the rules are very fuzzy in their origin. The whole kosher business comes from a passage about "Not boiling a kid in it's mothers milk". I think most people would interpret that much more literally and you couldn't kill a child goat (kid) and boil it in it's mothers milk; and probably also extend it to other animals like cows. But I'd still think that killing a kid and putting a slice on cheese on the meat would be fine.

So if somebody is going to be obtuse with what you can do it seems like it'd be good fun to figure out all the ways around it.

You probably do have to make it plainer.

Afaik, Europe is not in solidarity on no long range weapons and it's mostly driven by the US who is trying to get out of helping Ukraine. So which countries are given the drones and which countries said no long range attacks?

Presumably they don't know where they are.

It's not like something being civilian infrastructure is a problem -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_strikes_against_Ukrain...

What's somebody going to do? Complain to the UN?

Worst for whom?

Lack of chargeback risk seems nice for businesses.

The 60 seats business needs to stop.

Fillibuster is a senate procedure rule. That's about the weakest a thing could be. At any point Democrats could have gotten rid of the filibuster with a 51 majority.

Democrats would much rather let congress do nothing than do something. It's hurt their reputation so much.

No?

Maybe you were busy being open minded and etc.

But uh rest of Silicon Valley was pretty openly rooting for Trump to win 2024.

The emperor having no clothes is actually really useful when you can interact with the emperor. You want them then to be mallable like Tim Cook giving Trump a golden statue so they're immune to tariffs that their competitors have to pay.

I mean why not?

It got him a presidency, twice. It's clearly an effective strategy in our capitalistic society and if you feel otherwise let me know how many 0 Billions you've grifted from your job over the past year.

In general terms you want the stock to pop.

Your bank will get a ton of orders from institutional investors of how many shares they want at a given price. You will have a preference as to which investors you want on your cap table. Almost all of those investors value your stock less than the "pop price" (which includes the investors you want on your cap table). So you'll need to target the IPO below the "pop price" so you get them on your cap table.

You're probably picking investors based on how likely they'll let you stay on the board / CEO and if you think they're just going to dump the stock during the IPO (which would be bad for it's price).

So (unlike the SpaceX IPO) you're going to sell relatively little shares to retail who will buy at any price which during the opening days will cause it to spike as the demand (in nominal dollars) per share is beyond the IPO price target.

> but is the share price returning to IPO opening not just a sign that the banks accurately estimated something?

Sure they estimated something. But there's a ton of different things that can be estimated.

Complex systems don't pop out of thin air.

The US form of government is highly based on the existing British one and the British King had the ability to pardon and so that was copied over.

I do think it makes a lot of sense to do things like mass-pardon people for things that are no longer crimes (i.e. weed legalization) but I really don't see how singling out cases is correct since the supreme court already can do that.

I guess it depends on what you see as waste.

As a programmer I see waste all the time where people are doing work that could be clearly computerized for better speed and accuracy.

Clinton benefited from an era where if a voter was going to hear how bad your idea was then he got a chance to defend it.

> This doesn’t prevent people from learning to paint or play the clarinet. It prevents students from taking out enormous loans for it.

The problem is going to that there's going to be a large shock to the system. As pointed out in the article, a lot of teachers make $55k. So basically no education degree should be awarded because the average worker is better than a teacher.

Eventually the supply of teachers will dry up so much that salaries will go up. But how many years do you think until that happens? And then add 4 to when the supply catches up. Although I would bet what happens is that states no longer require a degree.

> I do think colleges should be required to list the average salaries that people with those degrees have.

Idk, I think just making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy is enough. Make both sides have skin in the game and you'll find students not able to get loans in situations that they would never get a salary to afford it.

There's kinda a significant difference between bloodletting and blood donation.

For starters, you're not supposed to donate blood when you're sick.

The other being the quantity. A donation is 1-2 pints. Wikipedia lists bloodletting as easily 3 pints [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting#Use_in_the_1600s_...

Except leadership is largely not from employees moving up the rank

Sundar (CEO) is from Mcksinsley.

Ruth (President) is from Morgan Stanley.

TK (Cloud CEO) is from Oracle.

Mohan (YouTube CEO) is from DoubleClick which is Google at this point (~15 years).

---

Largely the story of the past several decades is that "doing your time" is a bad strategy. Always move to another company to go upwards.

I didn't check, but I don't think the corporate charter for this companies allows for fraud.

Not sure what the penalty for doing things you weren't incorporated for but seems reasonable for me that the liability doesn't rest with the corporation.

What version of capitalism wouldn't have the problem of risky investments paying out more than safe ones?

The people with better ROI are just going to outbid the ones with a worse ROI for their retirement spending so if you just invest it into T-Bills you'll do worse than inflation.

They can't.

The subscriptions are for personal use not enterprise.

i.e. [1] "This article is about paid Max plans for individual consumers. If you're part of an organization looking to use Claude with your team, refer to Team and Enterprise Plans."

[1]: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11049741-what-is-the-...

I'm really unconvinced gerrymandering is the issue here.

It's not like Red cities have flock cameras and Blue cities don't.

It's really just that the Fairness Doctrine [1] needed to apply to more than radio. If you can constantly just repeat your point and then deny an opposition time then of course you'll get your point through.

Although maybe if super-pacs got outlawed then the Equal-time rule [2] would suffice.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

Isn't Flock more like a house sitter in the analogy though?

"I gave the person keys to my house and then I trusted they wouldn't open bathroom doors while somebody was there".

Like law enforcement is being given access to the systems, the door isn't "left open", a key was given to them.

If you actually act a realistic way then the (general) audience will completely miss it.

You have to drop your jaws, screech, and other over the top expressions so that everybody understands what emotion is being conveyed. A quick smirk when the villain deceives the main character will get missed; it needs to be a mischievous chuckle that clues everybody (but the main character) in on the fact somebody has been duped.

Seems pretty in line with a recent frontpost of "Pre-Modern Armies for Worldbuilders, Part III: Paying for It " [1].

There's a cost for everything and while you can "devolve" the cost downwards of a phone to an employee it's probably correct (in capitalism perspective) for an employer to pay for any tool they require so that the input costs are correctly correlated to the output price.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48689859

Eh, aren't most of those points non-sequiturs?

> The Gilded Age, which had quite high levels of inequality, occurred when the gold standard was active:

And the Gilded Age [1] ended long before the gold standard. Which makes sense since the Gilded Age is a political issue not a monetary one; how will the productivity from railroads be redistributed?

> It should also be noted that the gold standard did not bring any kind of price stability:

A comparison of 35 years against 4?

That's like bragging about how smart private credit is by showing the low volatility in it's price over the past year.

The large concern from gold bugs is that by printing money we just make the next crash even larger. But of course we just print more in the next crash so it doesn't happen. Take a look at the fed balance sheet [2]; under Kaynsian ideology you were supposed to sell that off during the boom years so you can take on debt during the busts but politicians are not disciplined enough to do that so the Gold Standard would've never let them.

---

IMO, the real argument against the Gold Standard is that the US left it is because we spent more money than we made to finance the Vietnam War. If we returned to it, then we'd just leave it again when it became inconvenient. It's not the Gold Standard that needs fixing in the country.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

[2]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...

> by doing nothing more than claiming to have laid mines.

Where you do you get your news from?

Iran has literally attacked ships [1].

Honestly, if there was a guy outside my workplace shooting people I'd turn around and if they were there the next day I'd also turn around and probably stop going to work until they tell me he's gone.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_attacked_during_...

I've always thought the reason a vendor can fleece the public is a mixture of 2 things.

1) You get elected by convincing voters to vote for you. Which is not the same as actually getting the lowest prices.

2) Core competency has been stamped out of a lot of government agencies and so if you're a skill negotiator you want to be collecting the commission from the sales contract to the government as opposed to a low salary from being the government agent.

So at the end of the day, making all these contracts public wouldn't fix future ones from being issued. Although I'm still for more sunshine.

Honestly, I'm not sure most people get "hurt" in scams.

Think of the generic which cup has the ball scam? Like no American sailor falling for that overseas is going homeless from that event.

But I mean do you want to live in a neighborhood with only broken windows?

When you retire is a personal decision (and also a financial one but I think for most people on this forum it's mostly a personal one).

That said, if somebody is say counting the days until 55 so that they can retire then it's likely they also wanted to retire pre-55. If the money is "stuck" in a 401k and so they are unwilling to retired beforehand then it probably would've been better for them to have stuck some portion of their 401k contributions into a taxable brokerage account and then retired pre-55.

But in this specific example, the guy I responded to was self-employed I'm kinda guessing their "hobby" is their job and so they kept working despite not needing to.

> Will programmers write more efficient code during the memory shortage?

If we can insert "some" then Yes.

> use of more advanced algorithms and data structures that use less memory?

I don't think so.

At least at work there is a push to decrease memory usage but the way I've seen it playing out is not using some O(N) data structure instead of O(N lg(N)) per-say but instead replacing `int[]` with `byte[]` or in-lining some fields to remove some indirection costs.

Well don't know your life but I suspect for a lot of people then it would've been more advantageous to not max out the 401k and retire pre-55 and spend the non-401k funds until 55.

This largely being my gripe about the Trump accounts in that you're allocating funds into them that can't be touched without penalties until like 50 years later. And for most people this probably isn't even a benefit because you can lifetime gift ~$15 million so like unless you're Bezos just invest the money yourself and gift your kid whatever large value item they wanted.

Yeah but Matt Levine is wrong.

1) Index funds and ETFs are highly active.

They're just low-cost due to largely algorithmic decisions but at all of the edge cases manual _active_ decisions are made.

IIRC, in this podcast Vanguard goes into detail about all of the active decisions they do [1]. It's long because uh, they do a lot.

2) You're in the index fund game because "you liked that index". There are literally thousands of ETFs. Saying "you want the market" is just wrong, you wanted a specific slice of the market and if the ETF changes the slice under you then that feels like a bait and switch.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQVz_VGJNnY