0hijinks

In the off chance this is a genuine question, this thought experiment is always resolved with "reasonable payments are only effective if many people contribute, and that is probably okay".

Consider the extremes: - No one does anything. The cause fails. No one goes broke. Many people are modestly inconvenienced. - One average citizen donates everything to a worthy cause. No one else donates. The cause fails and the donor is broke. Many people are modestly inconvenienced. - Everyone donates a small fee to a worthy cause. The cause achieves its aim. Some people do not benefit, and are modestly inconvenienced.

The choice, when given these two extremes, is clearly to decide by some consensus whether the interests of many (who would otherwise be modestly inconvenienced) outweigh the interests of the few (who would be modestly financially inconvenienced).

But it assumes the cause is truly worthy, the money is handled faithfully, and the survey method is fair and accurate.

I guess I had never considered at face value what that kind of arrangement means until reading this DOJ document.

It makes total sense to me that committing terrible crimes should be punishable. When a criminal per domestic law resides in a different country (and the issue crosses national borders), it seems to me (not a lawyer) that the determination of appropriate force must be decided by an international group.

Otherwise, what's chilling to me is... what stops a country from unilaterally abducting anyone they want? The country doing the abducting determines the laws that have been violated, after all. In this document, we've explicitly determined that international law has no bearing on domestic consequences. So do whatever you want, so to speak. Freaky stuff.

His rhetoric towards Maduro has a good consistency, yes.

Mind you, his messaging on corruption in government, domestic terrorism, Ukraine, and the free-market economy in the U.S. is all over the place.

It's surreal to read written arguments defending an "extraordinary rendition" using the military in terms of domestic criminal cases. And to so plainly state that international law ought not apply to the leader of the free world, effectively because we think we can and our interests come first, is distressing. If this is an "arrest" of a "fugitive", to keep with the DOJ analogy, it should be subject to the laws of its jurisdiction. Not the laws of whomever has air superiority.

> ... international law does not prevent [us] ... from ... arrest[ing] individuals [residing in a foreign state] for violations of United States law.

God, that's chilling.

> Congress has declined to amend relevant statutes to deny the Executive the ability to engage in rendition.

> Congress's continued appropriation of funds to the agencies known to engage in the practice should be taken as (at minimum) acquiescence.

So, because our Congress can't pass a bill handed from God himself unless it fills their coffers, we're silently consenting to this baloney?

And I get that legal precedence is a thing, but we shouldn't be looking at military operations in Haiti, or Libya, or Iraq as justification for more international shit-stirring. It's a slippery slope.

Albeit semantics, rebranding to the War Department is not good optics if one intends receive said department's advice before carrying out "a use of force that ... does not rise to the level of war in a constitutional sense". This nonsense is maddening.

> So you must always factor in the amount of time before a predicted crash: the longer it takes the more money you lose.

I think the idea is, as a put buyer (market taker), this has already been baked into the option premium. The only "maintenance cost" in the sense of a cost that adds to an open position is from interest on margin loans.

There would be a maintenance cost from rolling the position into a later expiry, but I think the impression is that this is a precise single bet.

EDIT: You're spot on about opening a position being a sort of cost too, due to missing out on risk-free returns. This is especially important for hedging. Less so for a directional bet.

The outage page has been updated to include context:

>> MathWorks experienced a ransomware attack. We have notified federal law enforcement of this matter. The attack affected our IT systems. Some of our online applications used by customers became unavailable, and certain internal systems used by staff became unavailable, beginning on Sunday, May 18. We have brought many of these systems back online and are continuing to bring other systems back online with the assistance of cybersecurity experts.

Tinnitus is sometimes neurological, seemingly caused by the brain compensating for a loss of sensation. I can imagine a horror story in which this just makes it a thousand times worse, on top of permanently losing all hearing.

Now, being able to use a hot-swappable audio sensor instead of an ear made of tissue would be pretty dope.

As a user, I'm under the impression YouTube uses click follow-through for algorithm feedback. For the past two years, I've consistently gotten more random content with ~100 views suggested to me in the side bar. I often click and check it out. Maybe prime the pump by diving for some random vids?

From the BOM:

MCU is an STM32H743IGT, external SDRAM is a Winbond W9825G6KH-6, and audio CODEC is a TI TLV320AIC3104IRHBR.

Links to the article and the PDF both are behind this human test. Guess today is the day I learned I'm a robot.