colonelanguz

7 ms·

1.
by colonelanguz 3y ago
> these gifts have been known about for a long time No they haven't. That's why it's breaking news when they get discovered. > In my entire life I have never seen any evidence that for supreme Court justices things infl
2.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
That is wild. What is an example?
3.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
Not the same thing. You're comparing the relationship between a fake version of an artwork and the artwork itself to that between two digital objects both of which are derivative of a third thing. The third thing is the analog to the a
4.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
Your like ironic actual point is well taken but I just wanted to note that even without the irony this is actually a very cool thought provoking question and I couldn't answer it at first.
5.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
Yeah. And he also hasn't beaten the market in over a decade.
6.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
Would you mind briefly explaining the concept of "tech debt" to a layperson?
7.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
In my opinion, no, not really. Hard work could be necessary but not sufficient, or contingently necessary. Or the success criterion could be defined in a way that obscures the link to hard work. This is from a review of Taleb's The Bla
8.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
Well said! I came here to say this. Founders of successful businesses usually are not exceptional geniuses. They often happen to be in the right place at the right time, or they steal ideas from other people when the business is too young t
9.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
You rock dude ignore these haters king
10.
by colonelanguz 5y ago
How many agains makes the study wrong
11.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
Standing and merits are both terms of art. Merits essentially means whether one side wins or not. Standing OTOH is a preliminary matter like jurisdiction. If the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the dispu
12.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
You cited a source which proves you were wrong in exactly the way I pointed out. Your entire original comment hinged on a bizarre metaphor you created out of your false premise that in protection rackets, the "threat" is fake or c
13.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
Can't tell if you're trolling/deliberately obtuse or what Here's what I meant: Your wrong conception of how a protection racket works undermines your argument that the person who said "That's like supporting a
14.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
> A protection racket implies the "threat" is fake or choreographed. Actually it doesn't
15.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
I just wanted to say that thoughtful posts like this are the reason I come to this site. Well-said, friend. I had never even explicitly acknowledged this in my own mind until I read your post.
16.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
Inb4 "Subscribe to Matt Levine's Money Stuff"[1] Particularly in terms of generating what another thoughtful user dubbed "contextual understanding," this is a gold mine. Also occasionally gives very lucid, refreshin
17.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
That question is probably a bit over my head. My outlook is pretty grim and skeptical because of my experience with American capitalism so far. But the fact that people like Leo Strine and Marty Lipton are apparently meaningfully moving t
18.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
Thank you for your kind words! I totally agree about how flippantly people throw out the value-maximization point. And it is definitely true that the real standards which govern directors' and officers' conduct are murkier than th
19.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
Certainly it has been enforced against a company (thousands of them), but in a way it is more of a hypothetical threat. I was not referring to a statutory law, but rather to fiduciary duties, which derive from the common law of equity. The
20.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
I agree! Were you attempting to respond to my comment, or just venting?
21.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
100%. Not that this means anything but I'm a JD and my JD girlfriend specializes in international law and we agree it's basically a joke. But hell yeah it was illegal.
22.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
I posted a long boring reply about this that you can read above, but it strikes me that your comment lives or dies on the meaning it assigns to the word "justify." If you're referencing _moral_ justification, then yeah of cou
23.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
I am sympathetic to the point that you are making and hate to go all legal-positivist, but an illegal war is a war that isn't legal under international law. Defending your country from an invasion is like the gold standard of legality.
24.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
Delaware companies do. See, e.g., Frederick Hsu Living Tr. v. ODN Hldg. Corp., 2017 WL 1437308, at *18 (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2017) (“[T]he fiduciary relationship requires that the directors act prudently, loyally, and in good faith to maximize
25.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
That's a fair point. It doesn't make me feel any differently about the proposition that, in a society that preaches values like rugged individualism and fiscal responsibility to its poorest members, it's strange to me that 99
26.
by colonelanguz 6y ago
This was incredibly frustrating to read because, intentionally or not, it perpetuates and normalizes the actual moral hazard of this crisis. It conflates the correct notion that if the government is forcing people not to work, it should mak