object-a

Yeah administrative areas are very arbitrary, and based on historical factors. If you really wanted to compare, I think comparing MSA's might get you closer. But either way this is a terrible metric

There's a few things about this data that indicate why this is not useful:

1. The New York City Sq Mileage number includes water.

2. Density for each of these cities varies widely by community. For example, 6% of Chicago's sq mileage is in the O'Hare community, which has a population density of 1000 residents per square mile. A better comparison would be Chicago vs. the Bay Area

You'd probably have to compare areas of similar population density to make a serious statement.

What is the prompt you used for this? I can't recreate it

When you deposit money at a bank, it is made very clear to you that only $250K is protected by the FDIC. Any more, and you either buy insurance for it or take a risk on losing it in a bank failure.

These depositors knew that and still acted irresponsibly, yet they are going to be made whole. It’s not that much different from taking out a loan you don’t understand.

FWIW, Mercury and Brex are not banks.

Mercury provides services and a frontend, but their banking services are provided by Choice Financial and Evolve.

Brex is also not bank. The Brex business account is an FDIC Sweep account, which constantly moves your balances across multiple banks to keep you within the FDIC limits.

For microservices, the "rewrite" fallacy usually takes the form of:

"Why are there so many small services running? Surely we can shut down / delete/ merge together a bunch of them to clean things up"

I'm pretty sure Elon has also hit this fallacy during his tenure at Twitter.

I am extremely skeptical that Netscape 4 is a lot more complex than modern day Twitter.

Is there evidence that the CDC (as opposed to the WIV) was doing coronavirus research, let alone research that was closely related to SARS-CoV? The WHO report linked in this thread says that there was no storage or research of related viruses.

Curious what the “vulnerable third party media software” that the hacker exploited was

Edit: NVM, the article says it was Plex

Low Confidence in intelligence assessments has a particular meaning, which is worth considering in this context:

> Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed [1]

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

This is a ridiculous statement. There are lots of people who will avoid investing in companies for ethical reasons. You might be a religious investor who chooses not to invest in “immoral companies”.

I also doubt the people you have in mind have enough financial capital to really force everyone’s hand _unless_ their arguments are actually persuasive

I don’t know if this is true — we’re largely talking public companies here, which should have resources to meet compliance and governance goals. If they can’t, then they are probably riskier investments.

But even if I accept it as true, it doesn’t contradict point 2, which is that investors think they’ll see better or more stable returns

I don’t think they’re doing it for an ideological purity test, they’re doing it because:

1. They believe there is investor demand for funds that take environmental and social impact into account

2. They believe that companies with better environmental, governance, and social Impact ratings will have higher or more stable returns over time

You can disagree, but I think there are good arguments to be made for both of those points.

I don't know what this site is or why it should be treated as authoritative, but putting Jacobin and NYT Opinion on the same plane seems pretty divorced from reality.

I'm curious whether earlier accommodations or therapy can ease the pressure to move forward with surgical transition, and thus reduce the number of people who feel regret for their decision.

That said, I'm not sure these articles are intended to improve treatment options. Rather, the goal seems to be eliminating transgender care altogether.

There are a few non-controversial reasons that this could be the case:

1. The study on Rapid-onset gender dysphoria could be flawed -- it asked parents, and not youths themselves, which might skew the data on the prevalence and incidence of gender dysphoria

2. The number of transgender youth in the US is small[1], estimated at around 300,000. A small absolute increase would result in a large relative increase, even though transgender-identifying youth are a small percent of the population

3. Improved acceptance, awareness, diagnostics and treatment may result in transgender youth seeing more options for themselves, and thus being more public in announcing their status or seeking treatment. It's not that more people are trans or genderfluid, but rather that they're more comfortable being public with their status

[1] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-ad...

Yeah, between poor customer service, massive wage theft, understaffed locations, and excessive security that ruins the customer experience, it's not surprising they have challenges.

I don't think this is a correct representation of the interview. Sorkin starts by reading a letter from an FTX customer that directly accuses SBF of stealing. The next 30 or so minutes are repeated follow ups on commingling of assets between Alameda + FTX, and Sorkin highlights past statements SBF made that seem to contradict with current reality. Sorkin even has this:

SORKIN: I think the question is whether you supposed to have access to these accounts to begin with. If I worked at a bank and was a bank teller and I decided to leave the bank at the end of the evening and take the cash that I ostensibly had access to, even if I intended to bring it back to the bank later or with even more money to give them back — I still stole that money.

The full transcript is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/business/dealbook/sam-ban...

There's a lot of outrage performers invested in crypto who want to make this about _anything besides crypto_.

So instead of people taking a close look at the crypto space and saying "wait, maybe a lot of these other projects are flawed", their anger gets focused on the press and the regulators. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it -- is the NYTimes really responsible for FTX because the tone of their pieces wasn't sufficiently harsh? I'm skeptical.

Funnily enough, this is a pretty succinct description of the article that's being called a puff piece.

"Self-censoring" over the response to your speech and thinking about the impact of what you say is called judgement. People do this all the time, based on context, power dynamics, etiquette, etc.

I have no power to "weaponize" this, but it's entirely reasonable to question the judgement of how someone uses their speech

This article reports on:

- commingling of funds between Alameda and FTX

- conflicts of interest between the two, including SBF's relationship with the CEO

- use of customer deposits to pay off loans for Alameda

- that FTX and SBF are under investigation

They ask about the real estate purchases, they ask about the transfers, they ask about conflicts of interest and criminal liability. How can a live unedited interview with those questions be a puff piece?

The NYT profiles I've seen is pretty clear that Alameda and FTX were mingling customer funds, that he refused to answer questions about the handling of funds, and that he was under investigation.

> But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship.

> Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details.

> Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...

What's an example of a puff piece?

I'm not sure reporting that Alameda + FTX had little to no financial controls, terrible accounting, and unaccounted for deposits is really puffery, unless you stretch the definition. And I've seen stories about SBF spending FTX money on personal loans and Bahamas real estate all over the legacy media. Even the restructuring CEO couldn't account for all the lost funds until recently

The Twitter official wasn't personally attacking Musk. And if your posts have the power to force someone from their home, you do have a moral responsibility to use that power carefully. Musk isn't just saying the official made poor decisions, he's accusing him of far worse.

Madoff was also planning to cash out and distribute the money he had left to family and friends. The FBI probably acted to prevent that

People were mad that he kept getting invitations to speak, but I bet all those interviews and comments show up in evidence.

Inevitable, but a lot of talking heads used the delay after FTX's collapse to sow doubt about corruption, media failure, etc.

Feds were probably gathering evidence from Day 1, and the restructuring CEO seems to have found it: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA00/20221213/115246/HHRG...