LatteLazy

People really need to start reading Fahrenheit 451…

I’m not American and I don’t support the death penalty.

That said…

If you’re going to do this, it absolutely should be a public event. If This is what a society does, the society have to own that imho. Anyone supporting it should be required to watch one first.

How can it be ok to do it but only secretly in a dark corner and not let anyone see?

BANANAs

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

I actually think this is very good. People thinking they understand statistics is far more dangerous and causes far more issues that people honestly saying they don’t…

The BBC’s just reported that the telegraph reported it was Iranians. Not that it actually was…

Obviously there should be limits but what should they be?

I actually don’t think asking for phone ids for 30min before and after an event within a limited distance IS overly broad. The fact it only returned 19 initial IDs kind of shows that no?

Equally, knowing someone has been in or near a bank is not particularly intrusive. It’s not like searching who visited a lawyers office or a sexual health clinic etc.

So would a 5 min window have been ok? Or a 10minute window?

When does a warrant become “sprawling”?

What would you manufacture at scale that would open the straits?

If you had an interceptor with a 99% rate of interception (even in such a tight space, and assuming it could intercept underwater as effectively as in air) then if the Iranians fired 50 drones at a ship, they’d have a about a 40% chance of getting at least 1 through (1 - 0.99^50).

So they would likely sink 4 in every 10. No sane insurer let alone captain or crew would take such a risk I think.

This is the issue with interceptors, you need phenomenally high reliability AND very large numbers AND very cheap prices per unit to make them workable.

As it is, I would argue this is a classic example of America trying to solve a POLITICAL problem with MILITARY force. This has never actually succeeded as far as I know. Certainly not on the last few decades.

1. Sounds like exactly when early investors and insiders would want to cash in and when retail investors who “have heard of the company and like the product” will buy without a lot of financial analysis.

2. A 300bn IPO can mean actually raising n 300bn by selling 100% of the company. But it could also mean seeing 1% for 3bn right? Which seems like a trivial amount for the market to absorb no?

I have a tradfi background but work in crypto with trading software.

The whole industry (except deribit) is a shit show of barely working apis that aren’t reliable or accurate in any way. It’s completely routine to not be able to get an order status for minutes at a time. Or to get fills after an order has been rejected. Or a week after a cancel confirmation message.

Coinbase is actually one of the worst offenders for this. Coinbase Prime, their supposed institutional grade offering especially so.

So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the same issues are happening more widely.

To be clear: deribit have always been efficient, accurate, reliable and generally excellent. If you must trade crypto, do it there so you’re Ops and Support people don’t have to suffer.

The most annoying thing about pieces like this is how easy it would be to actually test the hypothesis. They could just give people choline (double blind placebo including some participants who are not anxious). And test the effect on both choline levels and anxiety.

It’s also ready sold OTC.

Instead people just sit around and do meta studies on meta studies on correlation and publishing whatever statistical anomalies they can find.

Broadly speaking if the data is on someone else’s computer, it’s in their “house” for the purpose of the search.

Cracking open your phone might require a warrant. But basically every byte of data on it has come from your ISP and is backed up to Apple\Google etc. and those companies will let me search their computers for your data no questions asked (or for a nominal fee).

That’s how you sidestep the 4th amendment when it comes to tech in the modern age.

Unpopular opinion: the case against him/binance was always that as a non us citizen, outside the us, he failed to obey US law and in a paperwork and licensing sense not a violent or otherwise serious manner.

I don’t like trump. But “CZ” basically paid a ransom to let Binance come in from the cold. Why shouldn’t he pay another to get a clean slate and maybe go back to being CEO?

I never understand why people don’t pay more attention to “n” in these cases: number of other players.

If there are 2 suppliers in a market, they will collude without algos or private meetings: I can be pretty sure you will not cut your price if I don’t cut mine. The issue there is that there are only 2 suppliers, so trust is very easy.

If there are 100 other suppliers, I know ONE of them will cut their price. So I best cut mine first.

What I am trying to say here is that, algos or not, n is the major driver here imho.

That’s kind of interesting since the US has been very relaxed about falling values of n as long as prices seem ok.

The first trillionaire will be whoever owns the patent on mass producing graphene with controlled properties. I worked on that back in 2006. As far as I can tell no progress has been made.