darawk

56 ms·

571.
by darawk 6y ago
No, society is better off when police don't have the right to take data without consent unless they have probable cause. They have consent here.
572.
by darawk 6y ago
That's my point though. We should be trying to figure out how to make the physical world more like the internet, imo.
573.
by darawk 6y ago
You know what else isn't public spirited or democratic? The internet. The internet is a bunch of private fiefdoms. I think for the most part the internet works much better than the physical world, in large part because it is a collec
574.
by darawk 6y ago
> What is the value in putting a person through forced rehab when the reasons they are drinking/ on drugs hasn't gone away? As someone who did exactly this and stopped using because of it, they can be quite significant.
575.
by darawk 6y ago
> I mean, we can measure other things like long-term impacts on people's health, prevalence of crime, etc... but one of the questions I was hearing when this idea was first floated was actually, "can these situations be resolve
576.
by darawk 6y ago
Right, but they're also arresting fewer people. People that likely would otherwise have been arrested. Broadly speaking i'm supportive of this initiative, but it's important that its outcomes actually be measured, and just nu
577.
by darawk 6y ago
Exactly this. I hope that this program works, but we need to be measuring the actual outcomes here, not just saying "no arrests". It's easy not to arrest anyone. What's hard is not to arrest anyone without the crime rate
578.
by darawk 6y ago
I'm just using that term because it's one in which people are familiar with the multiplication effect, but yes you're right.
579.
by darawk 6y ago
This is mostly nonsense. There is nothing wrong with there being more shares short than shares outstanding. It just seems problematic, until you think it through. Person A has 1 share of company Y. Person B borrows 1 share of company Y from
580.
by darawk 6y ago
Sure, and all of that cashes out in an equilibrium, called marginal pricing. There's no breakdown in the notion of value here. Nothing incoherent about it.
581.
by darawk 6y ago
You know that economists actually have answers to all those questions, right? They're called Veblen goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good You didn't break economics with your "why are luxury g
582.
by darawk 6y ago
> The original claim was that squeezing an ill-advised short wasn't less moral than deliberately collapsing a currency and taking $1bn of funds from a government, or engaging in sketchy HFT practices. You said "then you don&#x2
583.
by darawk 6y ago
> You seem to be equating "is moral" with "moves prices towards the fundamental value of the underlying asset", which is an interesting position to take I didn't say anything about morality. This is a purely func
584.
by darawk 6y ago
Then you don't understand this, or any of the things you listed. George Soros noticed a mismatch of fundamental value. He pushed the price towards its fundamental value. These traders are pushing the price away from fundamental value
585.
by darawk 6y ago
> But price and convenience need to cross some thresholds before I abandon my car. Ya, but at least for me, convenience is already there for Uber. Price is the only thing that keeps me from abandoning my car for it.
586.
by darawk 6y ago
Not if you keep the tech. to yourself. Which is why you would do a robotic taxi. You avoid giving out the technology, and so you can charge a premium for your taxi service, while still undercutting traditional taxis.
587.
by darawk 6y ago
Curtis documentaries are in this weird uncanny valley that I intensely enjoy, but deeply uneasily. They're very pleasurable. They string together a grand narrative that says...something. Not quite sure exactly what. But man it sure doe
588.
by darawk 6y ago
It's depressing that you both have to worry about being flamed for expressing that view, and that those fears appear to be completely justified based on the responses you're getting. It's quite clear that Google's moonsh
589.
by darawk 6y ago
There are tons. I don't know which ones he's thinking of, but off the top of my head: PDT, Jump Trading, Domeyard, Two Sigma, DE Shaw, Jane Street, Citadel.
590.
by darawk 6y ago
Can't believe a comment this ignorant is so highly upvoted. Quant funds that do well are a real thing. Many people here work at them. Renaissance used a technicality to try to avoid taxes, and they are in a dispute over it with the IRS
591.
by darawk 6y ago
Now that Jan 15 has come and passed are you going to admit maybe Tether isn't a scam, or are we kicking the can down the road to a later date?
592.
by darawk 6y ago
Ya, I know about that guy. But there's a big difference between a regulator ignoring one guy, and the general public ignoring all of the bad press about Tether. But time will tell. We should know in just a few days now. For what it&#x2
593.
by darawk 6y ago
You aren't prohibited from doing the calculations per se. You are prohibited from doing them for a particular purpose, specifically video playback, in this case. If you just want to sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate H264 b
594.
by darawk 6y ago
> Always works until it doesn't. Madoff's scheme lasted 20 years and collected $50B, including many multi hundred million dollar checks from institutional investors. Madoff's scheme persisted because nobody knew about it.
595.
by darawk 6y ago
You've been repeating this Tether stuff for a few years now. Still waiting for the collapse. I'm sure its coming any day now.
596.
by darawk 6y ago
> Tough. That's Twitter (and any other platform) [0]. They are with in their right to suspend who ever they want. The article isn't claiming it's illegal for Twitter to do this. They're saying they shouldn't. T
597.
by darawk 6y ago
This is exactly right, and it's something that i've been trying to explain to anti-crypto people since forever. Crypto democratizes trust . It's true that anything you can do on Ethereum you can do inside of JPMorgan. JPMorg
598.
by darawk 6y ago
I read the thread. I get the idea, and it's nonsense. At scale, nobody cares about negative environmental externalities. If you added an extra one, behavior would not change in any scalable way. And it certainly wouldn't change
599.
by darawk 6y ago
Why would that modify anyone's behavior? Consumption already has negative environmental externalities, and it doesn't seem to be causing much modification.
600.
by darawk 6y ago
Or maybe it's that you don't really know what you're talking about. People have been using the term in this way for quite a while, and it isn't specific to crypto. It also comports just fine with the dictionary definitio

More ›