undefined1

No, Branson is a founder that is playing a positive sum game. He grows the pie and pushes things forward. That's also why they like Elon.

>Robinhood needs to rebrand

Sheriff of Nottingham™

Robinhood now works for the Prince.

> and everyone else is rather glad to see these people chased off of platforms

Then they are lacking empathy and being short-sighted. And apparently won't see the problem until it affects them directly.

Decentralization

Oh, but that depends on how you sell it?

Correct me if wrong, but my understanding with Robinhood is that you Sell to Close (by default anyway), which just goes back into the market. No further obligation?

> but if for some reason you have a repeat of today, you're out $20K plus

Can you expand on this? Why would they be on the line for $20k+ (or anything) after selling the option?

To be fair, voters thought the 2016 election was fraudulent too. Russia, Cambridge Analytica, #NotMyPresident.

This was already the new normal. We'll see it again in 2024 regardless of which side wins or loses.

Generational warfare waged via Robinhood.

The video and comments here sum up a lot of it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l1u036/wsb_...

$75k varies from hard mode to easy mode, depending on where you live, how you live, and other factors.

Unfortunately won't work until journalists and politicians uninstall it.

Until then, Twitter has an outsized influence on the world.

Basically that men tend to be more obsessive and more likely to occupy the extremes.

Here's a lecture where she explains in more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=243&v=HrscwJYO8G8

Camille Paglia (feminist academic, professor) has written and lectured about why that is. She has a famous line: "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

I'm curious what you all think about Nano? No ICO, no fees, no mining.

https://nano.org/

Right, the fear about Net Neutrality was largely directed at ISPs. That they would create fast lanes and bundle web sites like cable providers.

I admit, I bought into that fear. But it didn't happen. Plus average US broadband speed has increased drastically, up 91% from 2019-2020[1].

Maybe big tech/media needs to ask themselves, "are we the baddies?"

1. https://fairinternetreport.com/research/usa-vs-europe-intern...

Try a good faith interpretation.

Then you'll understand what they actually meant.

It's interesting how Twitter is self-isolating.

Why would any other country use it now?

No doubt this will lead to countries leaving Twitter and making their own. Indeed at least Germany, France[1] and Mexico[2] realize the problem.

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/merkel-se...

2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mexico/mexic...

"We need more than deplatforming" is the literal headline, and they support it in the post:

"Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken"

Note: More than. Additional. Also.

Mozilla seems to be moving in the other direction now.

"We need more than deplatforming"

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

At this point we find ourselves confronted by a very disquieting question: Do we really wish to act upon our knowledge? Does a majority of the population think it worthwhile to take a good deal of trouble, in order to halt and, if possible, reverse the current drift toward totalitarian control of everything? If the United States of America is the prophetic image of the rest of the urban-industrial world as it will be a few years from now — recent public opinion polls have revealed that an actual majority of young people in their teens, the voters of tomorrow, have no faith in democratic institutions, see no objection to the censorship of unpopular ideas, do not believe that government of the people by the people is possible and would be perfectly content, if they can continue to live in the style to which the boom has accustomed them, to be ruled, from above, by an oligarchy of assorted experts. That so many of the well-fed young television-watchers in the world’s most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising. “Free as a bird,” we say, and envy the winged creatures for their power of unrestricted movement in all the three dimensions. But, alas, we forget the dodo. Any bird that has learned how to grub up a good living without being compelled to use its wings will soon renounce the privilege of flight and remain forever grounded. Something analogous is true of human beings. If the bread is supplied regularly and copiously three times a day, many of them will be perfectly content to live by bread alone — or at least by bread and circuses alone.

– Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 1958

Serious question to those cheering on the deplatforming power of the big tech monopolies:

Are you still going to be onboard when Signal is banned from the App stores? How about when backdoors are required?

Bear in mind, Signal has no moderation - that's baked into the product.

Bitcoin/Crypto have plenty of practical uses.

It's in fashion now, but I suspect a newer generation will rebel against the mainstream who embraces it.

This is about outdoor dining and it's been almost a year now. Where's the science showing that outdoor dining is such a problem?

TikTok is like a highly compressed version of YouTube.

YouTube incentivizes creators to make artificially long videos, resulting in a huge amount of filler. So you get a lot of videos where you can skip the first 20%+ and not miss anything. The content is buried and spread out.

1 minute of content surrounded by 9 minutes of filler.

TikTok removed those 9 minutes, so it feels very refreshing in that respect. There's no incentive to create filler - just the opposite.

Of course the downside is that there's only so much you can fit into a 60 second package, so you're not going to get a deep dive into anything. But for the kind of content that can be compressed like that, TikTok wins big time.

The intro (letter from the CEO) is interesting, distancing themselves from Silicon Valley:

"The engineering elite of Silicon Valley may know more than most about building software. But they do not know more about how society should be organized or what justice requires.

Our company was founded in Silicon Valley. But we seem to share fewer and fewer of the technology sector’s values and commitments.

From the start, we have repeatedly turned down opportunities to sell, collect, or mine data. Other technology companies, including some of the largest in the world, have built their entire businesses on doing just that.

Software projects with our nation’s defense and intelligence agencies, whose missions are to keep us safe, have become controversial, while companies built on advertising dollars are commonplace. For many consumer internet companies, our thoughts and inclinations, behaviors and browsing habits, are the product for sale. The slogans and marketing of many of the Valley’s largest technology firms attempt to obscure this simple fact."

> Banksy's identity is right on his Wikipedia page

Maybe, but it's not confirmed.

"Banksy's name and identity remain unconfirmed and the subject of speculation."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy#Personal_life_and_dis...

Portraying it as some mad max wasteland is absurd, but so is referring to it as even pseudo utopian.

It's not sustainable in any way and there wasn't exactly a democratic process by which the residents of Seattle agreed to having a section of their city turned into an autonomous zone. Though it could be an interesting experiment to do this somewhere, I think it'd have to go through a vote.

I know you're specifying amateur comedy, but it's not so clear what's up or down. A lot of people think Dave Chappelle punches down, but is he really?[1]

"Comedy is subjective, and it's offensive, it really is. And people are making these imaginary rules, like, 'Comedy can punch up, but it can't punch down.' No, comedy punches down too sometimes, sorry. You don't make up the rules for my business without consulting a few of us. This is just people deciding these random rules about my business, and they're not even the funny people at their office, probably." - Jerry Seinfeld

"Who decides what’s punching up and punching down? I have a routine about these comedians writing articles in the Guardian, trying to set the rules of comedy, insisting that we should never punch down. And I say sometimes you’ve got to punch down." - Ricky Gervais

Also, it's important to understand what the actual target of the joke is. Chris Rock sums it up as, "Talk about what they do, not what they are"[2]. I think that's a useful rule of thumb.

1. https://arcdigital.media/dave-chappelle-punches-up-55dfe906e...

2. https://youtu.be/OKY6BGcx37k?t=2533

It seems like crab mentality at work. Pulling down those that succeed the most.

Asian Americans are top performers, both in academics and income:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...