sumy23

Maybe… however in the debate of this law, one side is saying “the law says you need purpose to cause” and the other side is saying “no it doesn’t. If you could read more than 14 words you would know that.”

I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine an objective observer would find the former argument more compelling than the latter.

No one’s 401k was plundered. Most of this was funded by the Federal Reserve via a combination of quantitative easing, low interest rates, and increasing the money supply. The Fed created the perfect environment for runaway speculation.

Does anyone else hate the long tail? Most of the content I consume comes from the long tail. The content itself is interesting and great. I love it. However, consuming long tail content feels like another step along the path towards social isolation. Like I can never talk about or share the things I enjoy with others because the chance of them also having enjoyed these things is near-0. And of course, you can recommend your long tail content to others, but everyone is always recommending long tail content to each other. It's a bit much to keep up with. I feel somewhat envious of the days when, for instance, everyone in the country listened to The White Album or Dark Side of the Moon and could enjoy it together.

All measurement, but especially so at the quantum scale, involves interacting with the observed subject. One of the observations made by quantum mechanics is that you can't observe a system without interacting / altering it in some way.

To give you a macroscopic example, the way you detect the color of an object is to apply electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum to the object and see which wavelengths are absorbed and reflected. The process of absorption and reflection is a physical interaction with the object you're looking at.

Sorry, I’m not understanding what you’re seeing. The law says “purpose to cause” and then lists two things joined by an OR clause. But you’re arguing that the “purpose to cause” language is irrelevant. I don’t see that in my reading. Can you break it down for me?

Crypto firms aren’t systematically important, so no bailout is necessary or warranted. This is more like the .com bust than anything else. In both cases, irrational exuberance surrounding unsound companies quickly vanished.

I wouldn’t say heroin addicts act with purpose to cause inconvenience. They do cause inconvenience, but that’s not the purpose of their actions.

Really? An entire Wikipedia article filled with detailed explanation of the phenomenon and its cause is an appeal to the stone? Really? Sorry, but that is absurd.

It's always a bit terrifying to me how often I see people on Hacker News confidently asserting some phenomenon can be explained by something that any rational person would recognize as non-nonsensical.

> That won't put the water back. Revenge is just the final form of prioritizing the comfort (or discomfort) of a handful of bad actors over the well-being of the other 99.9999% of the world.

Punishing the perpetrators won’t put the water back in the same way punishing a murderer won’t bring the victim back. We don’t punish to make right. We punish to deter.

It really depends on the specific situation. Public space is for everyone’s enjoyment. Unfortunately, some people take advantage of their right to the space in a way that detracts from everyone. Take a park for example. Typically, a great place to take your kids. However, if someone strung out on heroin loiters in the park, it suddenly becomes a much worse place for everyone else. Technically, being high on heroin in a public place isn’t a crime. This person is well within their rights to use the public space. But in many cases, people like this form a small minority that ruins the public space for everyone. Discouraging this type of person is actually maximizing the utility of public space.

That's just color commentary from the author of this piece. If you read the rest of the article, the specific changes proposed by the SEC are outlined.

Your outrage is unwarranted. The proposed changes are:

1) Limiting PFOF because it creates possible conflicts of interest.

2) Limiting "gamification" of trading via engagement prompts.

3) Adding sub-penny prices to exchanges to harmonize them with market makers. This is to encourage more orders to be sent to exchanges instead of market makers.

How are any of these things capitulating to institutional investors?

Those are good examples of inheritance. However, I think they'd be better served with mixins, which is another form of composition.

First of all, people aren’t pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice.

Second, why start defining someone a human at conception? Isn’t birth control depriving a possible person of their rights too?