ses1984

“They were the ones promising to act”

Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis.

Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate.

“At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished.

This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society.

So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done.

I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society.

There is no trust in such a society, only fear.

Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.

Nazi apologia.

Is there an $80 Pokémon game where walking outside is a core mechanic and that facilitates interaction with a huge network of users?

Can you elaborate a little on what 1 is supposed to mean?

That’s actually the example I was thinking of.

You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high.

> The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress

>The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have.

This 100%.

Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.

We are probably meant to assume ceteris paribus and only vary the dimension of corruption.

I think you’re right that culture plays a key role. For example if small bribes are customary, that doesn’t erode trust, that’s just the way things are.

Normally you buy into something like SP500 via something like an ETF, something with a very low fee because it’s managed entirely automatically via simple algorithms.

How can you invest in SP500 minus TSLA without racking up exorbitant fees?

Unless such a fund already exists, you’d be managing it yourself and pretty much wiping out any gains any time you rebalanced.

It’s been a bit longer than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

It probably goes back as long as they have been shouting news in the town square in Rome or before that even.

I think you might have it the other way around. The 7th harmonic is the real 7th harmonic, but the 7th note above the harmonic is tuned to equal temperament.

Interesting.

I wasn’t endorsing them, I was just saying they exist.

I wasn’t really aware of these differences, I don’t know much about TT and haven’t really read any of their marketing. I was just going from the idea that each fretted note has a compensated scale length, so each note is intonated individually, like a piano.

I couldn’t find a good source that explains the differences. Can you point me in the right direction or give a quick summary?

I believe on a piano each key is intonated to sound about the same as any other key, but I know that in the studio and for some concerts, pianos can be tuned to sweeten whatever keys are going to be featured.

There’s nothing stopping the TT company from redesigning the frets to match the intonation of a piano, right? It’s a choice to sweeten some keys, and obviously you can’t sweeten one without souring another.

Hopefully it’s obvious to anyone buying it that TT is designed for standard tuning. If you’re buying one of these you probably have multiple guitars so it’s not really a big deal that this one is limited to standard. I have several guitars and rarely change tunings on them, unless maybe going to drop D on a hard tail sometimes.

The technique problem isn’t huge: good guitarists don’t regularly death grip their notes or strike the strings too hard unless they’re doing it intentionally. Also neither is the tuning stability problem. In the studio you’ll retune as needed. Not many people play these on stage because if you’re the only one with TT in a rock band context you’ll sound off compared to everyone else.

I don’t really care either way, because my technique is horrible and I suck. Also imperfect intonation doesn’t really bother me, I barely notice it.

How could you tell the note by looking at a string? Unless you’re talking by about marking timestamps and measuring the time between peaks. A 42 gauge string tuned to E or D or any other note are going to look basically the same.

There are two type of “not parallel” frets and neither have anything to do with the diameter of the strings.

Different guitarists use different diameter strings because the diameter determines the tension when you tune to pitch. Different people prefer different tension. Most shredders prefer light tension. Most jazz players prefer high tension.

The diameter is compensated at the bridge and in some guitars the nut. When you press a thin string to a fret, the center of the string is closer to the fret than when a thick string is pushed to the fret. Thicker strings compensate for this by using slightly longer length which you can adjust at the bridge.

One type of non parallel frets are called true temperament frets. They are sort of parallel but squiggly. This results in better intonation closer to that of a piano.

Another type of non parallel frets is multi scale or fanned frets. This allows the bass strings to have a longer scale length, which allows you to use relatively thinner strings for bass notes. This is important because when strings get thicker relative to their length, they start to behave more like cylinders with thickness rather than ideal springs, and sound rather nasty because harmonic overtones are out of tune with the fundamental.

Free speech does exist in the law, not just as an ethical ideal. The law states that the government can’t infringe on your speech.

Anyone who is not the government is free to block your ass if they don’t like you or what you’re saying.

Not all speech is worth defending. The only people who benefit from free speech absolutism are the ones with only horrible things to say.

The only difference between now and 2007 is the curtain has been pulled back revealing how things have always worked.

I presume that hundreds of billions in profit refers to money extracted over multiple years, not per year, there’s no other way it makes sense.

>and most of that is probably not even insurance related since a large portion comes from UNH's enormous healthcare provider business

Isn’t that part of the problem? There are interdependent layers in the health care industry each designed to extract as much wealth as possible.

In the case of UNH, how much money flows as an expense on the insurance side into income on the provider side? Isn’t the relative profitability between these two sides an accounting trick?

It seems strange to me that you’re saying doctor salaries are too high, yet the majority of profits come from their provider business, which is where doctor salaries would be tracked as an expense, right?

“Less than $50b/yr profit” as if that’s a small amount.

I agree that retail investors would not want to be shareholders of insurance companies, but that’s mostly because I think retail investors are just chum in the water for institutional investors and prop trading firms to feast on.

If it’s so stupid to be a health insurance shareholder, then where does that leave their senior leadership and major shareholders? They’re morons for not immediately divesting and moving into fast food, right?

Show us the data. You want to make the claim, bring the evidence.

But there is no language that is best in all of these dimensions (including ones described above).

Everything is a trade-off.

I’m not sure they’re saying rust is king of types, they’re saying it’s king of llm targets.

Those two things aren’t the same at all, they’re so different it’s hard to believe you’re not being intentionally obtuse.

Can you name one solo dev AAA game let alone four?

Who would have thought ai labs with billions upon billions of r&d budget would have better models than a free alternative.

Thank you, I will check that article out.

On the other hand, there is so so much art out there, I could never hope to consume it all. It’s simple for me to use the character of the artist as a filter. I can break that rule whenever I want, but by default, other things being equal, I would prefer to consume art for pleasure from artists I respect as people.

I do consume art from outside this bubble but more to satisfy academic curiosity than pleasure.

Can you perhaps explain what is objectionable so I don’t have to read the objectionable thing?

If it’s so ridiculous then why is this practice specifically forbidden on US regulated exchanges?

It is when you are the market maker as well.

You’ve never heard of this strategy before? If i tried to explain it, I would do a poor job, it’s happened a lot, enough that it is forbidden on most regulated exchanges.

In this case they buy slowly to avoid artificially propping up the price, then sell all at once to artificially drop the price, only momentarily. They don’t have to cause the entire price drop through selling everything they acquired, they just have to move the price down enough to trigger stop loss orders that they know about.

With this strategy they can accumulate assets while also taking profits on the shorts. It’s the retail investors who put in market orders or stop loss orders that get taken for a ride.

In their role as market maker they have all the information needed to minimize the risk of this strategy.

You could just read the article.

This is outside my domain, and I don’t know the details, but in many cases Jane street functions as a market maker, market makers have access to information they can exploit to skim from anyone that trades through them, especially retail investors who place market orders.

Pump and dump is a strategy that whales can use to bully smaller traders, not unlike how in poker the smaller your stack is in relation to the minimum bet, the easier it is for someone with a big stack to squeeze you out. This is possible for whales even when they don’t have access to the information that market makers have, and it’s not allowed on many regulated exchanges.

It’s like the reverse of the GameStop short squeeze, except instead of retail investors ganging up, propping up the price to liquidate institutional short positions, it’s an institution using its fat stacks to cause little crashes which they have opened short positions to exploit.

One arm of the firm creates a waves in the price, and the other arm rides the wave.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

They're accused of opening short positions, then pumping and dumping to trigger the shorts. That's not arbitrage.