dallashoxton

Wow, that's crazy, none of what you said came true

Almost as if assuming you know more about someone's identity than they do doesn't make you some critical-thinking free speech martyr, just a presumptuous preacher telling other people how to live and express themselves.

Nobody has any reason to believe anything Kavanaugh says, the man has a known history of lying.

But you just outlined use cases for crypto (illicit activity, etc) in your grandparent post while simultaneously claiming crypto can't be used as a currency. Which is it?

This seems like whataboutism to me. It's possible to enforce the law against more than one type of crime, actually.

>Shoplifting is the act of stealing from a retailer, not an individual

No. You can shoplift from a small business or a family owned convenience store, which is essentially stealing from an individual. Those packages on the trains belonged to individuals btw.

>but some people shoplift and society is falling apart?

So you are okay with people stealing from you, as long as they're poor?

>Let the market fix their broken supply chains

There is resistance in this thread to instating armed guards, stating that it's dystopian to enforce property laws.

Because the idea that property laws shouldn't be enforced and that the response to property crime is to give the thieves more stuff (housing and UBI) is a perverse incentive and a recipe for a lawless society where criminality is rewarded.

This isn't an argument against UBI or expanding housing per se, it's an argument against the people saying property laws should not be enforced because the criminals are poor.

Violence indeed would solve the problem of rail theft though. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to steal from a train.

Many people are taking issue with him quote-unquote "stealing" other people's content when he's ostensibly just resharing single images that fit in a broader theme of being vaguely NYC-related. This seems much more defensible as fair use as opposed to rehosting/pirating somebody's entire textbook or TV show.

Really have to love how the HN hivemind can simultaneously defend wholesale intellectual property theft (genlib, piratebay, et al) and claim that copyright law is too strict while getting morally bent out of shape over someone aggregating and curating otherwise low-value instagram posts in order to eat takeout for free.

The lack of moral consistency is astounding.

>Individual filings won't be on sec.gov

For an application to a court seeking that someone be held in contempt of court? Yes, this absolutely would be on sec.gov as a 'litigation release' and there are 2500 such examples listed there. If it were true and the SEC is just waiting to issue a press release, I think it's prudent to actually wait for that rather than believe some apocryphal document.

As for contesting the statement, who knows? He is not exactly the most stable individual these days (which is what makes him and his companies a natural target for shortsellers)

Elon Musk knows as much about it as we do. It's not like he can call up the SEC and ask them to confirm/deny if they're taking action on him.

Sorry, but this story originally came from Bloomberg and I lost all faith in Bloomberg after they refused to retract the SuperMicro story. I will believe it when I see it on the sec.gov website. Until then it's as good as bullshit in my eyes.

You're acting as if market manipulation is some far-out conspiracy theory rather than something relatively common. I don't think it takes a "kabal of evil geniuses" to dupe a few credulous journalists who are incentivized and looking for a scoop by forging some documents. There are far more complex market manipulation conspiracies that are well-documented (see: LIBOR scandal)

Furthermore, why haven't we heard anything from the SEC? They are an increasingly transparent organization. Why haven't they issued a press release or published their court filings on their website? Are we supposed to just trust a journalist's word and ability to verify that an anonymous "source familiar with the matter" isn't just bamboozling them?

>Short sellers can't make Musk bash the SEC or call people pedos; that's on him.

But they certainly can engineer a fake rumor of an SEC requesting contempt of court by manipulating journalists and forging documents, if sufficiently motivated. Consider the SuperMicro story submitted to mainstream publications last year that was obviously fake and caused a massive decline in their stock. I don't think it's above a sophisticated actor to socially engineer a journalist in service of a "short and distort" campaign. Even Jim Cramer laid out the typical tactics of a short attack: get a short position open and then spread false rumors to a "bozo reporter" [0][1]

I'm no big Elon Musk fan, but the funny thing is -- correct me if I'm missing something -- I can't seem to find any evidence that the SEC ever published the complaint[2] documents supplied by a USA today journalist on the sec.gov website. Searching for "Case 1:18-cv-08865-AJN" only brings up the original settlement from October 2018. That alone gives me pause.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6gxPCurDJs&t=1m43s

[1]: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2918951-g-hudson/1026551-...

[2]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.h...

>Why do you think some folk are drawn to habitually view such content?

Curiosity, memento mori maybe.

What about people who work in slaughterhouses? Or a coroner or a mortician? Are they inherently "unhealthy" people because they have the personal temperament to handle a job that involves a lot of close contact with death? All nasty but necessary jobs with probably a lot more PTSD risk/scale than occasionally watching some gore and having to identify if someone's use of a racial slur violated community guidelines or not.

which might be a good argument for gigification of these types of content moderation positions since the machine learning tech simply isn't there yet and might never be in some cases.

Someone with a strong constitution/stomach (i.e. the people who can browse 4chan while eating) might find this work relatively leisurely/tame for decent pay and flexible hours if adapted to a gig-economy model. I mean, there's a whole class of sick fucks who watch the stuff on reddit's /r/watchpeopledie for no compensation.

Might end up with less mental health problems if this type of desensitized personality was leveraged for this nasty-but-necessary job instead of recruiting from naive 19-year-old kids or whoever in between retail jobs and exploiting them in atrocious work conditions until they get PTSD.

100% agreed.

>(If it decreases between 1B and 10B views on such content, and if we assume one person falling for it each 100,000 views, it will prevent 10,000 to 100,000 "falls") 14/

What does this sentence even mean? It's very hard to parse to the point of being incoherent.

The fact that people have gone from writing long-form essays to "twitter threads" to argue something is tragic.

If markets were efficient we wouldn't see such enormous and consistent outsized returns from value investors of the Graham-Buffett school, as mentioned in another HN thread today: https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/columbia-business/sup...

The absoluteness of the efficient market hypothesis also leads to some interesting paradoxes that don't make much sense when you look at the real world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grossman-Stiglitz_Paradox

"A random walk down Wall Street" is quite the contradiction of a book, though. It simultaneously claims that markets are so efficient that a lay-person cannot profit from them while acknowledging the existence of asset bubbles. The whole "efficient market hypothesis" to me seems much more like a religious belief among neoclassical finance types than anything actually scientific.

Furthermore, there's a fair amount of research that suggests that Brownian motion/random walk does not at all explain the movements of a stock's price [1][2][3]

[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=346975

[2] http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6558.pdf

[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/4538722?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

Thing is that any society that hesitates on adopting genetic engineering out of some fear of exacerbating income inequality or whatever is going to lose out in the long run to any civilization that has no such ethical hangups about genetic engineering. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

To me, he's suggesting that the prevalence of general anti-men sentiment within the culture at large is partly responsible for men dropping out of society. College campuses declaring that all men are rapists until proven otherwise is symptomatic of that culture.

And the entire concept of 'gas' to me seems to be a hacky work-around in order to implement a Turing-Complete language on the blockchain.

I'm not even sure it is needed -- the whole 'Turing-Complete' aspect of the EVM seems to be an engineering solution in search of a problem. And 'gas' is certainly not intuitive as a metaphor for end-users of Ethereum who would use it as a currency (how does a financial transaction "run out of gas", exactly?)

Can't remember where I read it, but someone put it best during the DAO fiasco last year when they wrote "Imagine Javascript but your bank account accessible through the Document Object Model."

Yes, but what defines a pyramid scheme is its unsustainability from a mathematical standpoint, not necessarily the fact that original owners and early adopters make money off of new investors. I think the latter property is present in almost all financial markets -- the "smart money" phenomenon.

I agree that the entire cryptocurrency market is in a bit of a bubble, but to write it all off as a pyramid scheme seems a bit of stretch to me.

edit: also, "pyramid scheme" to me is a very loaded term with a specific legal meaning to it as it applies to one single entity, i.e. the person or company operating at the "top" of the pyramid. There isn't really such an entity at the top of the entire cryptocurrency market, so I think it's much more apt to call it an asset or asset class bubble rather than toss around such contentious terms.

>Given that the original owners make the money from new entrants - that is the definition of a pyramid scheme.

By that criteria, any company that undergoes an IPO is also a pyramid scheme.

If there is nothing more suspicious than a cleared device, the next step in the privacy arms race is to automate the generation of an innocuous but prolific history for cleared devices and find a way to link that history with decoy accounts, preferably accounts that have existed for a while and that have been created solely for that purpose.

Scripts could be written to populate a system with an inoffensive browser history and file usage that reflects light-moderate casual use, the only issue is making any attempts at spoofing appear congruent, believable and not anachronistic with whatever dummy accounts you present.

It's extreme and absurd, yes, but preferable to have them snooping in on your actual life. I suspect crossing the border in the future will be on the same level of 'invasive' as a personal audit.