yuan43

> I find this fascinating. The exact sequence of his writing process for the song [Eleanor Rigby] is probably irrecoverable now but I’d love to know precisely when he decided on the song’s theme of loneliness, death, and worship, and when the name ‘Eleanor Rigby’ bubbled up into his conscious mind [from a gravestone in a graveyard he and John used to walk through]. It’s almost as if his unconscious mind had been giving him prompts, first ‘Eleanor’, then ‘Rigby’ (hey, check that sign out!), like a stage magician guiding their mark towards a card while creating the illusion of a free choice.

It's not uncommon for writers to put things into their novels even they don't see. Readers and editors note what's there, and the writers can be surprised that it happened.

Sean Coyne talks about this several times on the Story Grid podcast, and it's on display in several of the episodes in which a writer's draft is examined.

Maybe the real story here is how the process of creating art taps into a part of the mind that it keeps hidden from itself, or at least doesn't expose without persuasion.

How did this article get the first word "How" through the HN filter? Why does this filter exist?

> I recently read mfiano's blog post about Common Lisp. He makes the point that the language attracts loners. ...

That article by mfiano focuses on reasons the author switched from Lisp to Julia. As for the "loners" part, mfiano says this:

> This hints at a very real problem with Common Lisp: it has a tendency to attract people that employ the 'NIH syndrome' and refuse to collaborate. There is a large overlap of software available, and there is a large selection of low-hanging fruit for new developers. This coupled with the fact that the language is small, relatively speaking, hurts the language immensely.

Contrast this with how djha (TFA) puts it:

> I feel like Lisp is custom built for high functioning, high quality, low-head-count teams. I kinda feel like most of my projects into this category.

So TFA is kind of taking liberties with mfiano's post. I might come down to whether or not you view NIH syndrome as a net positive or negative.

> If the United States adheres to these five rules, it can demonstrate to Russia that the costs and likelihood of losing are so high, the only winning move is not to play.

Depressing to see that this is the kind of crap former US military are putting out.

The situation is so far beyond these trite five rules as to be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. This was the case even in Feb 2022. Everything the author claims the US should be doing is something Russia is doing.

There are no new insights here, just a strong undercurrent of US exceptionalism. Exactly the kind of garbage Russia is feeding to its people.

Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?

The time to make a move into a bubble that has burst is when nobody cares anymore. CNBC has moved onto other things. Cramer has nothing to say. You can go for weeks without it even being a topic of regular conversation. All those house flipper programs have been canceled. When the former golden children come up in conversation, the most likely response is "that's still a thing?"

I guarantee you won't want to buy that market because it looks dead and set to drop further. But it's really instructive to go back and look at charts for various assets after bubble implosions. There's plenty of time to get in after the Johnny-come-latelies have been margin called into oblivion and even the diamond hands have folded.

The absolute worst time to make a move is during a downturn. Things tend to get extremely volatile on both the upside and downside. Everyone is excited. There's hope! Not a chance! Which way will it turn out? It keeps buyers and the faithful clinging to hope. Buy some time after they've capitulated and completely written off the market. Go back to those charts and notice that the strongest rallies happen in bear markets.

Buy after the last bull has admitted defeat. My canary in that coal mine will be Tom Lee:

https://www.cnbc.com/tom-lee/

When this perma-bull turns bearish, you'll know the waters are safe.

To answer your question, I'm waiting. Waiting for stuff to get as boring as watching paint dry.

> AUSTIN, Texas, & MENLO PARK, Calif. – September 30, 2022 – Vista Equity Partners (“Vista”), a leading global investment firm focused exclusively on enterprise software, data and technology-enabled businesses, and Evergreen Coast Capital Corp. (“Evergreen”), an affiliate of Elliott Investment Management L.P. (together with its affiliates, collectively, “Elliott”), today announced the successful completion of their previously announced transaction to acquire Citrix Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTXS) (“Citrix”) and combine it with TIBCO Software (“TIBCO”).

What role is Vista playing here? It's not clear why that company is necessary or even involved.

It sounds like Vista is the owner of both entities and plans to sell the combined unit at some point.

One of the listed reasons:

> Credit card companies are anti-porn. You’ve probably heard how Pornhub can’t accept credit cards anymore. Or seen the new rules from Mastercard. Whatever crypto-utopia might come in the coming decades, today if you are blocked from banks, credit card processing, and financial services, you’re blocked from the modern economy. The vast majority of Automattic’s revenue comes from people buying our services and auto-renewing on credit cards, including the ads-free browsing upgrade that Tumblr recently launched. If we lost the ability to process credit cards, it wouldn’t just threaten Tumblr, but also the 2,000+ people in 97 countries that work at Automattic across all our products.

There are different ways to be "blocked." You can be blocked because your website can't accept CC payments, or you can be blocked because you are, for example, sanctioned by the US. It's possible to be blocked in the former sense without being blocked in the latter. For example, you own a website that accepts Bitcoin payments and which does not link to your identity.

Like it or hate it, this is a use case. I bring this up because a favorite point of contention seems to be that Bitcoin has no use cases. Here's one.

If that sounds outlandish, consider how very far the Internet has come along the free speech axis, as many commenters on this thread have pointed out. Now consider how far there remains to go and what the future is likely to hold based on past trends.

Granted, one thing Bitcoin hasn't quite managed to do (yet?) is replicate automatic payments without trusted third parties.

> “I had hoped the economy would have more clearly stabilized by now, but from what we're seeing it doesn't yet seem like it has, so we want to plan somewhat conservatively,” Zuckerberg said. A Meta spokesperson declined to comment.

The economy is stabilizing. It's being weaned off of ultra-loose money for the first time in years. The stock market is starting to behave more rationally, demanding that a company whose earnings potential is sinking and which offers no dividend be valued accordingly.

> ... Meta had more than 83,500 employees as of June 30, and added 5,700 new hires in the second quarter. ...

FWIW, 28 % annualized hiring growth for a company the size and age of Meta is not normal. It's a sign of mismanagement and especially loss of focus.

> With pressure building to clean up the crypto industry, Bitcoin is now an outlier when it comes to its environmental impact. Its closest rival, Ethereum, recently completed a major software update to drastically reduce its energy consumption in a highly anticipated event called The Merge. Goodkind points to that as an example of potential solutions to make cryptocurrencies more sustainable. If Bitcoin were to make a similar update, “its climate damages estimated in this work, would likely become negligible,” the study says.

It's a "solution" to the extent that you think proof-of-stake has comparable security to proof-of-work. And the jury is very much out on that one.

For example, proof-of-stake is quite vulnerable to regulatory capture. Exchanges stake users'f funds. Exchanges are regulated at the federal level. Therefore, regulator pressure can lead to protocol changes that directly harm users. There are already strong hints that this dynamic will become a big factor.

The same dynamic does not exist in proof-of-work, where exchanges and miners are decoupled.

From the research article:

> ... POW-based cryptocurrencies are on an unsustainable path. If the industry doesn’t shift its production path away from POW, or move towards POS, then this class of digitally scarce goods may need to be regulated, and delay will likely lead to increasing global climate damages.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18686-8

"Regulate" what exactly? Miners? Great, what's a "miner"? Even if you can thread that needle, all the regulation will do is to force miners into different jurisdictions or to downsize their operations. Neither of these outcomes will necessarily reduce the network's hash rate, jeopardize security, or convince Bitcoin users to stop using bitcoin.

It's a move designed to affect market psychology mainly. Multiple central banks have concluded that QE at best contributes marginally to the reduction of long term interest rates. People want something to be done, and BoE delivers.

It also shifts the discussion from "what's causing the fall of the pound and the rise of long term rates" to "what will be the effect of this new round of QE?"

To get a better picture, take a broader view. This move comes as all of the world's currencies are falling against the dollar. Why?

This article might be helpful:

https://www.lynalden.com/global-dollar-short-squeeze/

The recipe for what Santa Cruz is experiencing seems to be:

1. Locate the city in a geographically isolated, but beautiful area close to a major employment hub.

2. Institute strong anti-growth policies.

3. Invite a UC into town.

4. Allow the UC to expand without the matching requirement to build one market-rate housing unit per admitted student.

5. Wait a few decades.

What's great about this is how everyone is trying to get something for nothing. The students are trying to get a "UC" brand without the highly-selective entry requirements of other UCs, and largely bringing in loans to pay for it. The university is growing the student population without building sufficient student housing. Property owners benefit from skyrocketing values without experiencing the pain of finding a place to live, or proportionally exploding property taxes. The city benefits from the money the students bring with them in the form of debt.

I suspect this process would go into reverse rather quickly by taking a single step. Cut the federal loans program by 50%, then 10% per year for every year thereafter.

For extra bang, repeal Proposition 13.

> ... do understand this is my fault, but it sucks because I've also let my family down big time by deciding to buy a house. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe around 500,000 people are in a similar position to me.

The political consequences should not be underestimated. Parent is actually taking responsibility, something I doubt many in the same position will. There will be scapegoats.

> I [nvidia CEO] don’t think we could have seen it [massive effect of Ethereum merge on bottom line]. I don’t think I would’ve done anything different, but what I did learn from previous examples is that when it finally happens to you, just take the hard medicine and get it behind you…We’ve had two bad quarters and two bad quarters in the context of a company, it’s frustrating for all the investors, it’s difficult on all the employees.

This is not confidence inspiring. It was obvious that the Etherum merge would affect the bottom line in a big way. Why this professed ignorance? Does it have to do with the fact that to admit that it was visible a mile away would have been to admit the deep reliance the company had come to have on the short-term Ethereum mining boom?

Zero direct evidence for the title's claim was provided in the article.

All the Fed is doing is to normalize interest rates. Deeply negative real yields (5% or more) are aberrations that history has shown to ultimately lead to catastrophe.

Yet talking head and Dem Senator alike are treating rate normalization as financial Armageddon.

Somebody tell me how at the very least a 0% real yield on cash is going to kill the economy. Now explain what's normal about that.

The bigger question is why isn't sobriety viewed as the default position rather than the exception?

I mean, nobody would ask why young people are saying "no" to crack cocaine.

> Communicating effectively is a complex skill that takes years to develop, and an essential one if you want to program professionally.

I suspect that a good chunk of the drive to send "aging" programmers into management is that they're much better at communication than their peers. And part of it has to be that a subordinate who is better at communication than the manager often becomes a de facto manager.

Leadership often doesn't respect organization charts. But this can cause a great deal of angst among anointed leaders.

Is it possible that you realize you're most comfortable being alone, but the external signals you receive, and have accepted as truth, say that's not ok?

> I truly can not handle it anymore…

You don't really say what "it" is. What is it about being alone that you can't handle?

I think if you could try to put into words the bad feelings being alone is causing you, you might have a better handle on where to go.

You mention "saudade". Wikipedia explains it like this:

> Saudade is a deep emotional state of nostalgic or profound melancholic longing for something or someone that one cares for, or loves. Moreover, it often carries a repressed knowledge that the object of longing might never be had again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudade

It seems that's a world view locked on the rear-view mirror. It doesn't seem to track with your first paragraph or title, which is about seeking solitude but not being at ease with it. Did you at one time spend more time around other people?

> How do you deal with it?

Wanting to spend a lot (even most) time alone is perfectly ok. There's a wide range of needs for being with other people. If the discord is due to external perceptions, then disregard them. But if there's something else to it, say self-destructive tendencies, you may need someone to talk about it with with.

> Lithium is the lightest of all metals. Soft and malleable with a high capacity to store energy, it is ideal material to make lightweight, rechargeable batteries. Demand for the metal for lithium-ion batteries to power mobile devices has risen strongly for three decades. But while mobile-phone batteries require just a tenth of an ounce of lithium carbonate, a typical electric-car battery requires 130 pounds — around 20,000 times as much.

Without a radical breakthrough in batteries, electric cars are not the answer. They are every bit the problem that ICE cars are, it's just that the full environmental costs of the switchover have not been widely-recognized.

I wonder to what extent this reflects desperation for foreign currency (especially dollars) given the recent intervention by BoJ to stop the yen's freefall.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/boj-keep-ultra-low-rate...

My guess is that this would be a drop in the bucket, but who knows?

From this 2000 article:

>The recent rise in margin credit has focused attention on the Federal Reserve’s margin requirements for purchasing equities with borrowed funds, which has been at 50% since 1974. In November and December of 1999, margin credit grew very rapidly, outpacing the sizable appreciation in the overall stock market. And in January 2000, it grew further while the stock market’s valuation dropped, leaving the ratio of margin credit to market capitalization at its highest level in the past 29 years. This Economic Letter discusses the recent trend in margin credit and the merits of using margin requirements as a policy tool.

> ...

> The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 mandated federal regulation of purchasing securities on margin. The margin requirement was motivated by the concern that credit-financed securities speculation helped fuel the run-up in stock prices prior to the stock market crash of 1929. The act viewed the Federal Reserve as responsible for managing the availability of credit in the economy, so the Fed was charged with setting margin requirements for securities purchases. The Securities Exchange Commission was directed to enforce those regulations.

https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economi...

According to Wikipedia, the rate hasn't been changed since the 1970s:

> Regulation T governs the extension of credit by securities brokers and dealers in the United States.[1] Its best-known function is the control of margin requirements for stocks bought on margin. The initial margin requirement for such margin stock purchases has been 50%[2] since 1974,[3] but Regulation T gives the Federal Reserve the authority to change this percentage. Raising the margin requirement ostensibly reduces risk in the financial system by reducing the potential leverage and total buying power of investors. Conversely, lowering the margin requirement increases systemic risk by expanding the buying power and leverage available to investors. Since 1974, the Federal Reserve has not deemed it necessary to adjust the margin requirement despite periodic extremes of price volatility in the equities markets.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_T

Given the absolute neglect of the mandate it was given on this, I suspect the Fed views even mere talk of increasing margin rates as the nuclear option. But if the usual roll call of psyops fail to deliver, this thing is there in its back pocket. I imagine the mere threat would cut 20% off the S&P overnight.

> There is a LOT of money still sitting on the sidelines waiting to be deployed. And it WILL be deployed, that’s what investors do.

Reminds me of the saying: "Venture Capital starts with too many good ideas chasing too little money, and ends with too much money chasing too few good ideas."

> Among some Meta employees, the process of reapplying for jobs within a limited window internally is known as a sort of human-resources purgatory they call the “30 Day List.”

> Meta, as of last year the name of Facebook’s parent company, has long had a practice that employees whose roles are eliminated are subject to termination if they can’t find a new job internally within a month. Many other companies also make efforts to reassign employees whose groups are closed or restructured. At Meta historically, it was usually only employees deemed undesirable who failed to land new positions. Now, affected employees and managers say, workers with good reputations and strong performance reviews are being pushed out on a regular basis.

This sounds like a recipe for achieving rock-bottom morale of the remaining employees at warp speed. If anything, it seems worse than just firing people. By shunting high performers into the traditional dead-end path, the company simultaneously calls the employee's reputation into question while placing their professional short-term future in limbo.

Why not just fire?