talltimtom

Well obiously they aren’t showing “stake” and “soup” those are binary classifications. They are showing stake-like, soup-like and salate-like, which you can normalize to one. If you actually want to keep the last axis which is essentially a comment on how much the item fits within the space you can use dot color or size though I’d argue that it’s actually pretty much irrelevant for this comparison.

Currency is debt. If you have a 20$ bill that means essentially that the government owes you the equivalent in value. If everyone converted all their debt to currency that just means the state buys all the debt and prints sufficient government IOU’s (bills) along the way. If there is not enough value to cover the debt, the notes just lose value as others refuse to trade them at their previous rate.

Might just put a cap. I have a 5% account which sounds awesome, but it’s caped at 8000$ and then goes to zero.

Why would the standard be to calculate a number that has no use and isn’t rooted in reality? If the rate is 3% annually and paid out daily, the the daily rate is the number that compounded yields 3% annually....

Robinhood is a small operation that’s skimming pennies off your transactions to fund its operation. The alternative is banks who are doing the sambut times a hundred and banks are making a ton of money off their customers even with 100 times as many employees as robinhood.

They are not bad guys’s. They are still making money(surprice!?), but they are much much more modest about it than traditional banks. This account is a fine example. They don’t need to give you a 3% deal, but they are doing it anyway because it’s benefitting both them and their costumers.

To big to fail doesn’t really protect them if they lose their costumers. A bank with tons of customers that’s bleeding cash due to a market crash is salvageable(and remember the investment in bailing them out payed off), a bank that’s bleeding cash because it doesn’t have any customers is not salvageable and no longer “big”, so it will fail.

Maybe the polls were bad because the people conducting them were pushing to have sufficient difference between private and public polls in order to maximize their profits.

> This wasn't fraud because these articles were true.

And it wasn’t insider trading because the reports didn’t include new non-public information. If he had information about for instance he outcome of a phase 3 drug trial and bought based on it And then released the results early he would have been breaking the law.

> The savvy prediction of events exogenous to a company’s operations is very much not insider trading.

So asking a representative subset of Tesla’s employees what their numbers are going to be prior to reveal is not insider trading? If that’s the case then I need to start gathering fundes enough to pay them for the info and make a huge bet.

People have been prosecuted for sitting in on a court case and trading the second the ruling was made because it was deemed that the information was not yet public information.

It’s definately not ok to trade based on insider information. Doesn’t matter if you just heard from you cousin who’s the CEO of a company that they are about to tank or reach for the moon. You might not work for the company but you are still guilty of trading on non-public insider information.

The laws also forbid sharing inside information, yet if you have a company conducts its own “research” to discover inside information from others before its published that doesn’t make it legal.

The point of many trading laws is to prevent trading based on non public information. Privately conducted polls on political votes is definately non-public information, and in order for them to trade based on them they should publish first, which would likely also deminish the returns since suddenly they aren’t the only ones aware of the public/poll disconnect.

Randomware doesn’t care about the exchange rate. They just funnel cash through crypto’s because it’s a simple way for them to take digital payment. In the down market they can’t cash out as many dollars per bitcoins, but the victims also get way more bitcoin for the same amount of dollars.

A low valuation might affect coinminer malware though.

“touch interfaces are ubiquitous.”

I feel old, but honestly this was just, what? 10years ago?! does nobody remember how everyone in the entire mobile industry proclaimed Apple would fails because touch interfaces weren’t tactile. yet today every single phone is basically a copy of the first iPhone just with better chips and random stylistic touches to differenciate?

“I'm confident he had good ideas. I'm also confident he had plenty of horrible ideas...”

... as you walk along you path you meet a man. 50% if the time he tells you sage advice that makes you a multimillionaire and 50% of the time he tells you sage advice that doesn’t make you richer. What do you value the mans afvice as?

It’s not a cult or a conspiracy when what the other part is selling actually materializes.

“This is a laudable first step”

There is no such thing. “Why take a step away from the oncoming truck, that one strp won’t save my life?”

Well that settles it, I’m off to program some Go code in Emacs.

“all the shady stuff ... things like put it on the front page and in the newsletter and whatnot.”

I really don’t get how you could consider them helping to promote popular campaigns shady. I mean it’s the very point of the entire platform, and how both they and their users and the backers of projects gain value.

It is a business loss. And if the business paid this though borrowed money it could end up going bankrupt, yet he’d still have the 42k$ that his company paid him.

> and seems to blame others.

Where do you get that from? He writes about his own faliures and even goes on about how he failed to play test sufficiently and did a poor job of marketing. How does that come off as blaming others to you?

For accounting purposes he likely did actually pay himself the money, transferring it from the company to himself, and adding the perceived value of the game to tho company, which can write off the loss going forwards.

It didn’t sell 42,500 net. He writes that his net profit was -42,500. Note the minus in front. He sold ~100 copies.

> They get around usury laws by saying they aren’t making loans but advancing cash in exchange for a share of future revenue.

Didn’t stripe also resently start doing this? Does anyone know if they gearing up a business as a predatory lender as well?

> feel their sovereignty is threatened by Facebook

That’s kind of like saying that coka-cola feels threatened if the CEO reports an illegal lemonade stand that’s blocking his driveway.

The scales are not just different, they are absurdly different. UK is NOT afraid that they will lose sovereignty because of Facebook. Thats just ridicules.

... you are suggesting that information about new systems should be communicated to pilots only through self study of near crash reports? So if someone updates the system they just sit back and wait for the first time the system crashes or almost chrashes a plane in order for pilots to learn about it?

So you want them to bankrupt small companies while letting large companies getting away with not even a slap on the wrists? That seems strange. The law as written has leeway in the amount to make it more fair than it would be if you applied it universally.

I get people saying “Well of cause”. But this is just a fluff piece. I honestly would love to see a scientific breakdown of just how often we are actually seeing people become addicted due to purely psycological or environmental factors. I come from a family that has seen all to many cases of addiction so I am absolutely certain that there is a genetic component to it, and as a result I have consciously stayed away from anything addictive short of caffeine, to which I honestly feel I have an unhealthy addiction that I just cannot cut. I’d love to see someone break down the science. And I truely think that if the consensus became that addiction was most often due to past trauma, then we would see a revolution in how fundamental where distributed and in treatment.

My perspective is this. I am a quite experiance CNC operator and have used this particular model for over a decade. I don’t have a problem with it, even though I admit it took a bit of getting used to originally and I still agree that the controls aren’t intuitive, but that doesn’t matter to me cause I know them by heart... but now I’m running a shop with 5 other CNC operators who constantly break the machine and shut down work for trivial completely non problems like John used Peters Machine and now Peter is back so John is back on his own machine, suddenly none is able to turn on their machines so they’ve all started cutting out parts by hand. So I’m spending tons of time dealing with complete bullshit things that would not otherwise have been a problem had it not been for this particular brand of CNC. It doesn’t matter how well I personally know the machine, because the problem is that I’m now wasting my time trying to prevent them from wasting theirs. This is not a problem of inexperienced operators, it’s a problem with a machine that only works with the aid of a super-user, and which doesn’t easily show the path of how people should develop super-user abilities without breaking stuff and working really hard to understand what they broke and why before they can move on to fix it.

Thank god I’ve never had to deal with a CNC machine like that. But git is that machine.

Secretly I think this is the true reason for gits popularity. It’s like vim, a wonderful tool once you get past the first hill, but I would never force a whole team to use vim, I know it would be a disaster productivity wise. But because of gits popularity it is indeed forced on almost every developer.

Extrapolating these trends would suggest that all popular songs will just be repetitions of single sentences in the year 2140.

Just like 98% of all front doors are easily opened with brute force. Just because you can circumvent something, or doesn’t make it unusefull.

If you feel like you aren’t paying more for something when you pay 5$ more just because I pay 20$ more, then have some magic beans to sell you.

China is “paying for the war” or “losing” in the sense that more of their soldiers are dying (more increase in cost), but at the end of the day no one is better of in the middle of a war than in peace and soldiers are dying on both sides. Also, at the end of it they may end up winning the war even if they do have larger losses along the way.