trident5000

"Experts" are wrong all the time. I have doctor who didnt even order my mri with iodine last week, because hes a fool. He didnt even know that was an option. He also didnt know ultrasound to find an injury was an option. I know more than this doctor on ligament tears and how to treat them at this point and thats supposed to be his job. This is just one example but I find new ones every week where "experts" in all fields have no clue what they're doing.

This obviously isnt to say all experts are not knowledgeable, but theres plenty who are not and often they are in charge. Thats why taking their opinion as ultimate truth without question is dangerous.

Match Group (owner of tinder) basically has a monopoly in combination with their other apps. Even Facebook tried to challenge them and failed.

They should try turning the network on and off for the 3rd time.

Id also go lower down to trading managers who really know the day to day operations.

24 hour fitness wanted my fingerprints to check into their gym. I had to explain to multiple employees why that was never going to happen.

Thats what your apple ID is for. The problem with ownership on the blockchain is it still depends on a central authority recognition for most useful things. For instance your home title still needs to be recognized by the government. And if thats the case you might as well just have a database derived from the authority.

Now if you wanted to change the whole system to where the government doesnt need authority over home titles anymore in any way (taxation, ownership enforcement, etc), then thats a possibility. Not saying this is a good or bad idea. Phones are harder for me to see this as ever a possibility because its really a partnership where Apple provides ongoing support.

Its a step that's never going to happen because its a terrible idea.

Theres not some grand crypto plan, they probably will just accept them in apple pay one day. Maybe some nft related things. Thats about it.

Well you’re very dramatic and passionate but still very incorrect. The underlying housing market rise and collapse was from retail speculation, period. Sure they borrowed from banks but they still did the borrowing and actions. And who cares what the derivatives did in terms of diagnosing the underlying cause which was retail speculation. Wall street had a hand in causing the severity of the collapse theres no doubt about that, but they didnt drive the foundational bubble directly, only indirectly. The point is retail stupidity causes foundational bubbles. Derivatives made things worse but they were...derivatives, they're called that for a reason dimwit. And who cares about relatively small tesla position and “crypto trading desks” which have no permanent exposure. Thats absolutely nothing in the 2 trillion retail crypto environment. Crypto is retail driven regardless if its a big or small investor. Its not proper institutions buying. Please get real on this because you sound like a clown. I think part of the issue is you cant distinguish between retail and institutions. Retail doesnt become institutional just because they have a lot of cash/assets, rich people are still retail unless its a formal family office of which most people do not have (and even then Id say it more of a formality and still retail).

18-49...could that age gap be any wider. A 20 year old is going to deal with Covid quite a bit differently than a 40 year old.

Im sorry but everything you wrote is just incorrect. The notion that retail cannot and has not caused bubbles in the past is asinine and your explanations of past bubbles are just factually wrong. Anyone in 2001 remembers their barber telling them which tech stocks they were invested in. The housing market was clear cut retail debt in 2007. And the entire crypto thing is retail. Blackrock is not invested in Bitcoin. You sound so confident but are just so wrong.

Where is this data coming from? Thats simply not true. The dot com bubble, housing bubble, crypto bubbles were all retail.

Investment companies are far less likely to lead a speculative bubble than retail buyers. They are professional investors who go through a valuation process. They have also always been part of the market.

Because the real estate sector is like 30-40 trillion. 2007 was the result of a massive infusion of debt by unsophisticated retail "investors" who bid prices up far higher than even their rental value. Lending standards dont allow this today.

If big institutional money is going to cause a frenzy it would need to be irrational money managers that somehow clear their purchases through a panel and none of them say anything. Some point out that blackrock is on the other side of this zillow unloading but they have trillions in assets and only 60 billion in real estate. This is the largest money manager in the world and thats all the exposure they have.

Blackrock has trillions in assets but only 60 billion in real estate. They are under-invested in the sector but will buy a fire sale.

How about Match Group?

Sure that makes sense, they thought they could power through not putting in the sweat equity and they were wrong. Thats definitely a reality.

Never suggested that. Just that there being buyers matched with sellers (there always are as that is a requirement of a market to exist regardless of its direction in price) doesnt mean the market is bolstered.

However, to me it makes sense that theres some softness in what Zillow tried to do because rates are likely to rise in the next year or so and most people know that. Thats going to put pressure on lending which effects housing demand. Their AI might be top notch but they probably just timed the whole market poorly.

Right so even with AI technology and directly owning much of the housing data in the US, they still couldnt make a profit. Any time you buy a house to flip it you are paying a premium in hopes to make a greater premium. Instead they are making a loss. Thats not a good market signal.

Thats not how you look at this. If this were a strong market signal they would be selling to Blackrock at a profit and not a loss. The exchange value is down not up. There were equal buyers matched to sellers in 2008 as well when the market was cratering (not that we are in 2008).

That would be twitter

Agreed. The media has always known to cherry pick instances that dont indicate a widespread problem and then run with the fear mongering to boost ratings.

Really the issue is that astroturfing works. Its a proven and well studied psychological strategy. Troll farms use it, marketing firms use it, and the media has used it for decades.

8200 hate crimes in a country of over 300 million. I'm sure not everything goes reported but overall not bad.

Pseudonymity is where its at if it can be done well...where its verified that this is an actual person and not a sovereign or political party troll farm. But at the same time protecting ones true identity. Platforms right now are in charge of that vetting process and try their best but its really just not working well.

Im not talking about technicalities. Im talking about what type of society do we want to live in.

Men moving their arms. Sounds like some hard hitting sexism to me.

A look behind the curtain is often revealing. Ill never forget that Huffington Post editor team photo: https://twitter.com/lheron/status/733758898855940098?s=20

Categorizing something this broad and nonchalant from a joke rap video as medical misinformation is an obvious wrong-think power grab.

In what oppressed world should you not be able to say that.