weakened_malloc

What they mean is that when a company becomes part of an index, like the S&P500, historically, they come in somewhere around approximately rank 500. The S&P naturally results in more buying of winners and more selling of losers, so anyone who owns an S&P ETF will own that stock when its approximately rank 500, and will own more and more of it as it grows to be a bigger part of the index (higher rank).

Now, however, these IPOs are so big that straight away they're at like rank 10, or 15 or whatever. The investors who own the S&P don't experience any of the upside when they grow from rank 500 to 10. They are only exposed to the downside (if they lose value/rank/fall out of the index) or the marginal upside if they continue performing and generating returns.

The point is that given the size of the IPOs relative to other companies, their addition to the index has a much more downside exposure than reasonable upside exposure.

I'm probably butchering my explanation here, so apologies if it sounds odd.

they borrowed ETH against the stablecoins on AAVE before they were frozen

If people are getting 'fleeced' in the corporate bond market, they deserve it because they should know better. Corporate bonds are traded mainly by institutional investors and professionals, not retail like shares are.

Can you explain WhatsApp further? Every 1:1 chat I have typically leaves a little note saying it's e2ee

There's open source ones. Nitro keys are what I've been using and they're basically flawless.

Buy some put options instead?

Of course it is. The junk bond market is a thing for a reason.

What do people mean today? I've always been under the impression that a democratic country follows the majority rule to the greatest extent that's reasonably possible.

Gosh that man has a way with words

> A lot of companies already do this. As long as those fees are mentioned somewhere before purchasing

As long as it's part of the advertised price, im ok with that

This argument never really holds water with me, why stop at card costs? Why not add on an additional fee for every other thing like, fuel surcharge on delivery costs, employee surcharges (I don't live in a place where tipping is expected), or even energy surcharges?

The cost of the product should be what's on the label. If that's not enough, raise the price.

Unfortunately, this is only going to push Sony/Nintendo/MS more towards cloud gaming. AI enabling these amazing reverse engineering efforts and democratizing access to gaming is amazing, and preventing vendor lock in is always something I'll support. However it's hard not to see them pushing gamers towards needing to play games on cloud only, preventing these kind of things happening.

simpler - yes, but that would also lead to a debasing currency, hyperinflation, and guaranteeing that nobody else would buy your bonds.

i think OP is talking about MS365 copilot, not github copilot

OP here: I wish that were the case, however we're targetting old school businesses who unfortunately in my experience get weirded out by .io style domains

Because the size of the market was/is so small that you're actually able to corner it. Oil or Treasury futures are far too big that no single person could ever corner it.

ill swap places with you, if you like, lol

or the average human has <2 legs

Many don't though, and even if they all did, you can't hedge forever. Hedges are also rolling, so as some hedges expire the companies need to set up new hedges, which are at a worse FX rate. So the hedges lessen the impact but they aren't perfect, otherwise they would not be called 'hedges'.

Because that was 1985, and this is now. Entire supply chains, input costs, planning, etc. have been built around the assumption of the JPY trading in some sort of range.

Of course that will change over time, if it hasn't already. The Japanese government's messaging about this has been that they're not really worried about the currency weakening (after all they're massive net exporters! it should be a good thing), but rather the speed at which it's happening.

Use TextVerified, load up like $5 of credit and OAI verification is like $1.00. Then when your account is made, ensure 2FA/passkey is setup then you don't need to worry about the phone number.

As someone who's very well informed on that corner of financial markets.. you're absolutely right. 66bn might cause some minor moves in yields but it's far from a disaster.

US 10y bond auctions are often >40bn in size, with shorter maturities well over that. The seller of this debt (China) wouldn't want to smash the market because they'd only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Point being that it's an easily digestible amount of debt.

The Chinese (or anyone, for that matter) can't just 'call' US debt. They can either wait for it to mature or sell it to someone else.

> The slippery slope argument is nonsense

If you're going to operate from that point of view there's really no point to further explaining how a bill like this would adversely affect people. One only needs to look as far as the 'temporary' measures in the patriot act to understand that slippery slope arguments are often not so silly. The Overton window moves with laws like this.

Maybe the tinfoil hat is also getting a little tight, but something like this is a giant repository of internal cybersec data being put into one place. The model will see what people are fixing and anyone peering in can make an educated guess on how long that vulnerability may continue existing because people don't update when they should - the alphabet boys wouldn't be able to keep their hand out of the cookie jar.

The difference is that those other things in the past didn't really place an undue burden on everybody else. Whether a child is allowed to watch an R rated movie or go to a pub has no effect on how I conduct myself, age-gating computers or the internet does affect how I use things.

> I think the theory behind the law is that experimenting on children to optimize (without any ceiling) for increasing watch hours, which 100% of the social media sites are doing at all times and have been for over a decade, is unethical and should be illegal.

I agree, and I think this is where the focus should be. It places no burden on any regular consumer to do anything and all the burden on the platform providers.

I was just using that as an example with the private sector, but my opinion is equivalent to the public sector. Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services.

Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services.

If the public is annoyed by how your service is being provided and they feel the need to send through AI generated privacy demands, that suggests the department you're in isn't doing a good job relative to your customer's expectations. Something needs to change; maybe have a page that allows people to delete accounts or whatever private information they're ALLOWED to delete, maybe the public needs to feel more reassured that their data is safe, or maybe it's something else.

Whatever the reason, AI has placed pressure on you and your arm of government to meet the expectations of the public, pressure that didn't previously exist.

It was a genuine question because I wasn't really understanding the point of your OP, apologies if it came off snarky.

> By contrast, having zero mechanism for the rest of the parents to control this, as is the current case, does impose your "do whatever feels good" values on the rest of the world.

Parental controls? They take 5mins to setup.