three_seagrass

They're not sure how the star came to be around the blackhole but it likely wasn't around when the blackhole was formed.

The mass of a star required to form the black hole would have swallowed this smaller star in it's formation.

Either way, it's challenging the current conceptions of how binary systems form/work.

The point is that Apple sells their user data for market access. Google won't even do that.

This is antithetical to Apple's privacy branding.

That's per warrant requests for individuals, IIRC.

Apple shares with the CCP for all users by default.

There absolutely are HFTs running off arbitrage on the major exchanges, so you wouldn't need to hit many, just a couple major ones.

We are talking about theoretically crashing the market, not an auction, and illiquidity won't protect it.

Yeah the music stops when the naive outsiders stop having the extra cash into the system.

Even without the edit, your response feels like a no-true-scotsman

i.e. an attempt to remove bad actors who deal in decentralized cryptocurrencies from the purity that is defi.

What are some large, successful defi organizations today?

The lack of liquidity is what would push the price down, since demand is higher at lower prices.

Isn't that just admitting that the primary use case of crypto is illegal activity?

Yep. A good currency is meant to have low volatility and an expected value in the future.

Confusing or conflating good currencies with investment assets is a common crypto evangelist move.

Friendly reminder that Apple shares their iCloud data (users' docs, pictures, messages, etc.) with the Chinese government in exchange for market access:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

How do you do packet inspection when they're all encrypted?

Try using Fakespot:

https://www.fakespot.com/product/sleep-mask-3d-deep-contoure...

It does a pretty decent job of sorting out the obvious garbage w/ fake reviews, though it can't help with Amazon's co-mingling inventory.

They don't, they call out the hypocrisy of habitual liar making claims about first amendment rights.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376

Pretty much. There are also limitations to freedom of speech the principle if not first amendment or freedom of association.

John Stuart Mill specifically calls this out in the harm principle. From what I've observed, people who invoke "it's freedom of speech philosophy" rarely understand that even as a philosophy, free speech not a blank check to be able to say whatever you want w/o consequence. Or they equate it to freedom of reach.

Freedom of association and private property.

There's a difference between "strong arming" and showing someone the door.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Being banned from Twitter for breaking their TOS agreement is just a contract violation too.

It's not so much "falling for it" as it is jumping on the bandwagon.

The hype is real, and mirthless smart people are just looking to cash in on Meta's billion dollar branding moves.

I don't know why you say that, because even in lieu of high inflation, USD has been less volatility than the majority of cryptocurrencies.

Love using Replit but is there any way to try this before buying without having to wait weeks on a waitlist?

By that same logic, tweets are fragments of content and conversation.

Any contract between major market suppliers and consumers that do not have a break clause is open to being interpreted by a civil court judge as okay to break without much, if any, penalty.

These types of contracts are not new or innovative.

They're usually used by mining companies to hedge future market variance, and are not exclusive to Tesla either. On top of other companies having these contracts in place as well, mining companies will pay to break these contracts if a high enough bidder comes along or flat out pays them to break it.

With demand pricing spiking for batteries, these lock ins are not very strong.

Elon only mentioned the bot 'problem' to get out of the deal.

He shut up about the bots as soon as it was evident the excuse wasn't working. Bots are of no concern otherwise.

>Town square. The one thing that keeps Twitter standing is its cultural relevance.

Social networks rise and fall. Twitter is no more the town square than MySpace, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok, Mastadon, Snap, LinkedIn, etc. are, and the attempts to redefine them as such are only a means to political end.

Musk cares more about making money than anything else - he didn't become a billionaire by being altruistic and he's not going to start now after this investment.

Conservatives have shown they have a blind spot for perceived persecution, at least from the perspective of moderates on the sidelines.

It leaves conservatives open to being conned by everything from Chinese electronics manufacturers [1] to bankrupt reality TV stars [2]. Misconstruing TOS agreement violations as censorship persecution makes it easy for billionaires to win conservative admiration without actually doing anything.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/us/politics/trump-save-am...

You're all arguing about a red herring anyways.

As with many of the things Elon has tweeted or said, appearing to value free speech for Twitter was just him appealing to conservatives, upset with their perception of cancel culture.

Wait to see if Elon actually makes any TOS and policy changes in the next month, and debate then.

>With a strong vision for freedom of speech and actual value enforcement, it would attract the right people.

The social media company called Gab is the antithesis to that statement:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/rookie-coding-mistak...

The flip side of that is imagine all the technology we would have if we didn't have or defend problematic technologists oppressing people in the industry.

I don't agree with character assassinations on HN, but you can see it right there in their comment on Reddit.

SJW is a pejorative, and by associating statutory rape with it, he is belittling and dismissing the validity of the term, which is in turn defending it.

Words matter.