Sure... I'm on the sidelines thinking he's getting his catholic/protestant religious metaphors mixed, and in order to succeed, he's kinda burning a potential ally in Christians by making his victory condition the recognition of the absurdity of Religious thinking... so, well... good luck storming the castle.
But, I will note that certain things... like w-r-d-s we can't say, write, or think are definitely a weird modern Blasphemy taboo. Blasphemy without sacredness. A twisted Blasphemy.
I'll read it... but as he says, it's not for me. My interest is in what the people it's for think of it... is there a prediction market for that set-up? I have some wagers I'd like to place.
I think it is interesting to me that the OP is more of a process/phenomenon post that specifically avoids content... and we have a natural tendency to try to skew it back to content. We can all say (even conservatives) in a particularly platitudinous way that culture and norms change... maybe we disagree on some norms maybe not on others. But...
I don't think the issue is content, the issue is process.
I'm not much of an enlightenmentarian, but burning the enlightenment process(es) to arrive at (post-)enlightenment ends? That's what this is really about. I don't think it ends well and we're no where near the end.
Everyone is the priority group eventually... the only folks who would stand in line (more than ordinary) would be people not in the priority group at that time hoping for an earlier access.
If we're concerned about SES, then add an SES score so poorer workers have a higher queue # than richer ones. Billionaire guys in their 40s would be #6 ... the math could make it so that Elon Musk is the last person in the US to be vaccinated. Everyone before him would be eligible for a shot... unless, of course, no one showed up to the distribution center and his was the only arm available. :-)
Certainly wouldn't preclude appointments or other forms of queue management...
Large open spaces... like the temporary facilities built in China (and NYC) in a matter of days.
But sure, could also blend it with a weekly lottery system for folks after group, say, group 2. Just to make sure there isn't a chaotic rush.
But part of the idea is to stop registering for 500 doses (now that the initial phase of Drs. and Nursing home immobiles have been vaccinated. Put the doses where the arms are and vice versa. Keep it simple, keep it moving.
The alternate that we're moving to seems to be wide-distribution via commercial entities - which is fine... it brings some efficiencies and adds some new in-efficiencies and ultimately will be *less* priority based than other systems.
I'm fine with that too... but sacrificing priorities (in practice, but not in hypothetical policy) just means people like me get vaccinated sooner... as long as we're all good with that.
Kinda think we should do a line-jumping scheme. Think of boarding zones where you're given a number 1-5 ... the 1's all queue and get vaccinated while 2's watch... once 1's are done, 2's get vaccinated... if a 1 shows up... they get vaccinated next... then back to 2's and so on. 5's? Yeah, not likely you'll get vaccinated unless there's no one there.. in which case, bully for you, bully for all of us... we win. This way there's always an arm for a dose and any priorities we want to prioritize are prioritized. Eventually lots of 3's, some 4's and a bunch of 5's will get in... 1's can always cut to the front if they have a change of heart.
Write the most convoluted stupid point system you want to determine who's a 1 and who's a 1a, who's a 2b, and who's a 5... I don't care (that much)... just get out of the way and get shots in arms.
I recognize I'm in Zone 5... I just want us to get to the "how come that underserving jerk is vaccinated and I'm not?" as soon as possible.
... and yeah, fix the messaging around vaccinations and masks.
Sure, but in the instance above, there's no possible defense since it would be defending against an event that hadn't happened and couldn't be foreseen -- except in a 'frivolous' hindsight lawsuit -- hence why QI would be appropriate because if we require police not to use excessive force subduing arrest candidates... then some greater number will not be arrested.
As you note, I think there's a possible play along the lines of Miranda (which is what I think JB is getting at).
You have the right to remain silent.
But
Anything you say can and will be used against you...
You have the right to a peaceable arrest
But
Anything you do to resist a peaceable arrest can and will...
That's only slightly tongue in cheek as many of the problems start with people disinclined to a peaceable arrest.
That said, I do think there's still a legitimate play to both codify in law and culture that the constitutional principle is that arrests must fundamentally be peaceable... I think we'll have to live with a greater number of failed arrests from people disinclined but also not posing a direct threat to public safety... and that might be a good thing too. Until the police are then accused of not using more force to remove *obviously* bad actor who subsequently does X.. but then that's what QI is for, I suppose.
Basically we have the policing we want and incentify... change the incentives if you can live with the policing we'll get.
What's interesting to me are the folks who were telling themselves that they were going to ride the stock to the moon... where I'm 100% sure if I'd bought at $4 or even $10 I'd have sold at $40 (Talk about great returns, baby) and looked the idiot when it hit $400. It's the postmodern problem of not knowing what Moon means.
I believe the President can and ought to be impeached and disqualified.
On a quick skim of the doc, I think the outline is concise and accurate, but I'm less sanguine about the blow-by-blow descriptions which I feel are more like a twitter recap than a good argument of principles.
D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20
E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22
F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29
In particular, I think the drafters have made a huge strategic mistake in Section F (Dereliction of Duty) by calling out the Presidents Tweets during the riot where he urges them to avoid violence. I guaranty that people will follow the logic introduced by the drafters themselves that Trump was at least trying to do 'something' ... the proper way to frame this was that he was PRESENT to incite, but while the Riot was escalating his dereliction of duty was manifest by ineffectually tweeting in ABSENSE. The tweets in the doc are treated as mitigating features that they downplay rather than prove actual dereliction. There's also no discussion of the National Guard and it's standing orders(?), Confusion during the Riot, and eventual deployment by ? (Pence? Schumer/Pelosi?). This will bite them in the butt, and is an unforced error.
Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the indictment reads like this... its a B- ... trying to paint an emotional scence a'la Twitter and missing the simple facts that would illustrate Trump's basic complicity and dereliction.
True enough... I read that approx $9B of the $13B lost went to #1 & #2... so let me rephrase that most is going to those groups... so I guess my question is: who eats the $4B on the way down? (Assuming that some portion of #2 cashed-out)
I'm assuming that Chewy sold enough so that their initial investment and 3-board seats are covered by the squeeze play... so they may 'give back' some of the paper gains, but will end-up with a 'free' 9% stake in the company.
I'm guessing the Pro's playing the short/gamma squeezes were happy to trade upside to redditors for real money.
Does RoaringKitty cash-out $20M, $15M, $10M, $5M? When does he cross the line from hero to sell-out?
I get the short squeeze... what I never saw fully explained was the exit strategy... how do you trade the squeeze run-up into Real Property without crashing the squeeze? For Some, for Many, for All?
I'm wondering how the categories break down:
1. Large investors who wanted to take-over GME (Chewy)
2. Large investors squeezing @ $4 exiting at, say, $400 (Pro's)
3. 'Day Traders' seeing the Short exposure in 2020 and investing at $4, $10, $20
4. Redditors joining the frenzy at, say, $100 in 2021 - but moving significant chips, say $15k+
5. The horde throwing $90 (JB's boss) for a single share to "stick it to the man"
If the losses belong mostly to #5, then it's a Robinhood tale... if the losses will hang on #4... then there will be much schadenfreude. If there are no losses, well then I will be amazed.
Still no idea what exit strategy is... plus I find it ironic in the revealing sort of way that the $20B market valuation of GME raises no actual funds for GME to do anything with... because the SEC wouldn't allow them to swap their stock with any other company in a buy-out. So other than possibly enriching some officers (and hopefully some employees) the disconnect between stock/company/ownership should be cast into relief.
Same... their hook is commission-free trades plus easier access to RH-Gold which allows Margin trading under all the usual conditions. Their app is "easy to use" but looking at it, it's just modern design without the usual clutter of, say, TDAmeritrade or E*trade both of which I've used. There's nothing in TDAmeritrade that makes it more-sophisticated when it comes time to click BUY.
But RH-Gold and Margin trading seem to be a new thing that Milennials think is a trap laid just for them.
I can get Margin trading at any brokerage... but most of us GenX'rs don't... cause we grew up with people who were alive in 1929.
Milennials discovered Margin Trading and didn't have the spectre of 1929 haunting their investing habits.
This is the pitch:
Our mission is to democratize finance for all. Earning revenue allows us to offer you a range of financial products and services at low cost, including commission-free trading. Here’s how we generate the majority of our revenue:
The cautionary tale Saul keeps alluding to isn't all that cautionary because the poor soul wasn't in the red, hadn't been loaned $1M, mis-read a settlement/balance statement and likely killed himself for reasons bigger than the trigger event (as is usually the case)... though a sad tale no matter what.
Eh... there's still something off about this. I believe the technical explanation that they have to maintain a settlement balance to cover the various baseline + risk factors required by the clearing houses... no problem. What I don't believe is the non-technical explanation that they were "embarrassed" to admit they had to borrow to cover the settlement float? The second part? That's what we call a cover story.
On “Who’s Afraid of Cancel Culture?”
Sure... I'm on the sidelines thinking he's getting his catholic/protestant religious metaphors mixed, and in order to succeed, he's kinda burning a potential ally in Christians by making his victory condition the recognition of the absurdity of Religious thinking... so, well... good luck storming the castle.
But, I will note that certain things... like w-r-d-s we can't say, write, or think are definitely a weird modern Blasphemy taboo. Blasphemy without sacredness. A twisted Blasphemy.
"
I'll read it... but as he says, it's not for me. My interest is in what the people it's for think of it... is there a prediction market for that set-up? I have some wagers I'd like to place.
"
I think it is interesting to me that the OP is more of a process/phenomenon post that specifically avoids content... and we have a natural tendency to try to skew it back to content. We can all say (even conservatives) in a particularly platitudinous way that culture and norms change... maybe we disagree on some norms maybe not on others. But...
I don't think the issue is content, the issue is process.
I'm not much of an enlightenmentarian, but burning the enlightenment process(es) to arrive at (post-)enlightenment ends? That's what this is really about. I don't think it ends well and we're no where near the end.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Living in a Haunted House”
JB is the only person on the Spam Callers DNC list.
On “Linky Friday: Money For Nothing, and Your Clicks For Free”
Ok, maybe Musk then Mark Zuckerberg. 30-yo billionaires definitely last.
Zuck's the last.
"
Everyone is the priority group eventually... the only folks who would stand in line (more than ordinary) would be people not in the priority group at that time hoping for an earlier access.
If we're concerned about SES, then add an SES score so poorer workers have a higher queue # than richer ones. Billionaire guys in their 40s would be #6 ... the math could make it so that Elon Musk is the last person in the US to be vaccinated. Everyone before him would be eligible for a shot... unless, of course, no one showed up to the distribution center and his was the only arm available. :-)
Certainly wouldn't preclude appointments or other forms of queue management...
"
Large open spaces... like the temporary facilities built in China (and NYC) in a matter of days.
But sure, could also blend it with a weekly lottery system for folks after group, say, group 2. Just to make sure there isn't a chaotic rush.
But part of the idea is to stop registering for 500 doses (now that the initial phase of Drs. and Nursing home immobiles have been vaccinated. Put the doses where the arms are and vice versa. Keep it simple, keep it moving.
The alternate that we're moving to seems to be wide-distribution via commercial entities - which is fine... it brings some efficiencies and adds some new in-efficiencies and ultimately will be *less* priority based than other systems.
I'm fine with that too... but sacrificing priorities (in practice, but not in hypothetical policy) just means people like me get vaccinated sooner... as long as we're all good with that.
"
Kinda think we should do a line-jumping scheme. Think of boarding zones where you're given a number 1-5 ... the 1's all queue and get vaccinated while 2's watch... once 1's are done, 2's get vaccinated... if a 1 shows up... they get vaccinated next... then back to 2's and so on. 5's? Yeah, not likely you'll get vaccinated unless there's no one there.. in which case, bully for you, bully for all of us... we win. This way there's always an arm for a dose and any priorities we want to prioritize are prioritized. Eventually lots of 3's, some 4's and a bunch of 5's will get in... 1's can always cut to the front if they have a change of heart.
Write the most convoluted stupid point system you want to determine who's a 1 and who's a 1a, who's a 2b, and who's a 5... I don't care (that much)... just get out of the way and get shots in arms.
I recognize I'm in Zone 5... I just want us to get to the "how come that underserving jerk is vaccinated and I'm not?" as soon as possible.
... and yeah, fix the messaging around vaccinations and masks.
"
Heh, just giving people what they want not what they ought to want... a kinder, gentler fascism.
"
LF1: Natalist UBI... it's breaking everything.
On “From RawStory: WATCH: Rochester Police Union president defends cop who pepper sprayed handcuffed 9-year-old-girl”
Sure, but in the instance above, there's no possible defense since it would be defending against an event that hadn't happened and couldn't be foreseen -- except in a 'frivolous' hindsight lawsuit -- hence why QI would be appropriate because if we require police not to use excessive force subduing arrest candidates... then some greater number will not be arrested.
"
As you note, I think there's a possible play along the lines of Miranda (which is what I think JB is getting at).
You have the right to remain silent.
But
Anything you say can and will be used against you...
You have the right to a peaceable arrest
But
Anything you do to resist a peaceable arrest can and will...
That's only slightly tongue in cheek as many of the problems start with people disinclined to a peaceable arrest.
That said, I do think there's still a legitimate play to both codify in law and culture that the constitutional principle is that arrests must fundamentally be peaceable... I think we'll have to live with a greater number of failed arrests from people disinclined but also not posing a direct threat to public safety... and that might be a good thing too. Until the police are then accused of not using more force to remove *obviously* bad actor who subsequently does X.. but then that's what QI is for, I suppose.
Basically we have the policing we want and incentify... change the incentives if you can live with the policing we'll get.
On “Wednesday Writs: Trump’s Impeachment Response, Spellchecked and Explained”
That's why I try not to win too early in the evening... ruins the fun.
Also, when it's late, then I can say, hey... that was $300 worth of fun, right?
"
What's interesting to me are the folks who were telling themselves that they were going to ride the stock to the moon... where I'm 100% sure if I'd bought at $4 or even $10 I'd have sold at $40 (Talk about great returns, baby) and looked the idiot when it hit $400. It's the postmodern problem of not knowing what Moon means.
On “The Media, or Try Consuming News Like A Grown Adult”
That's what I said about satellite radio... but here we are.
On “House Impeachment Brief: Dems Make the Case”
I believe the President can and ought to be impeached and disqualified.
On a quick skim of the doc, I think the outline is concise and accurate, but I'm less sanguine about the blow-by-blow descriptions which I feel are more like a twitter recap than a good argument of principles.
D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20
E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22
F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29
In particular, I think the drafters have made a huge strategic mistake in Section F (Dereliction of Duty) by calling out the Presidents Tweets during the riot where he urges them to avoid violence. I guaranty that people will follow the logic introduced by the drafters themselves that Trump was at least trying to do 'something' ... the proper way to frame this was that he was PRESENT to incite, but while the Riot was escalating his dereliction of duty was manifest by ineffectually tweeting in ABSENSE. The tweets in the doc are treated as mitigating features that they downplay rather than prove actual dereliction. There's also no discussion of the National Guard and it's standing orders(?), Confusion during the Riot, and eventual deployment by ? (Pence? Schumer/Pelosi?). This will bite them in the butt, and is an unforced error.
Unfortunately a lot of the rest of the indictment reads like this... its a B- ... trying to paint an emotional scence a'la Twitter and missing the simple facts that would illustrate Trump's basic complicity and dereliction.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
Jan 27: Hold the Line!
Feb 2: No U!
"
True enough... I read that approx $9B of the $13B lost went to #1 & #2... so let me rephrase that most is going to those groups... so I guess my question is: who eats the $4B on the way down? (Assuming that some portion of #2 cashed-out)
I'm assuming that Chewy sold enough so that their initial investment and 3-board seats are covered by the squeeze play... so they may 'give back' some of the paper gains, but will end-up with a 'free' 9% stake in the company.
I'm guessing the Pro's playing the short/gamma squeezes were happy to trade upside to redditors for real money.
Does RoaringKitty cash-out $20M, $15M, $10M, $5M? When does he cross the line from hero to sell-out?
"
I get the short squeeze... what I never saw fully explained was the exit strategy... how do you trade the squeeze run-up into Real Property without crashing the squeeze? For Some, for Many, for All?
I'm wondering how the categories break down:
1. Large investors who wanted to take-over GME (Chewy)
2. Large investors squeezing @ $4 exiting at, say, $400 (Pro's)
3. 'Day Traders' seeing the Short exposure in 2020 and investing at $4, $10, $20
4. Redditors joining the frenzy at, say, $100 in 2021 - but moving significant chips, say $15k+
5. The horde throwing $90 (JB's boss) for a single share to "stick it to the man"
If the losses belong mostly to #5, then it's a Robinhood tale... if the losses will hang on #4... then there will be much schadenfreude. If there are no losses, well then I will be amazed.
On “Robinhood, Reloaded”
Help, new SEC regulations are putting my comments in mod.
"
"Still, short sellers mostly are holding onto their bearish positions or they are being replaced by new hedge funds willing to bet against the stock"
Sonuvabitch if we haven't moved into the Barricade the streets portion of the revolt.
Problem is, Napoleon eventually shows up with Cannons. The "whiff of grapeshot" memes will be epic.
"
Friday: GME price at $350 go brrr
Still no idea what exit strategy is... plus I find it ironic in the revealing sort of way that the $20B market valuation of GME raises no actual funds for GME to do anything with... because the SEC wouldn't allow them to swap their stock with any other company in a buy-out. So other than possibly enriching some officers (and hopefully some employees) the disconnect between stock/company/ownership should be cast into relief.
On “From Vox: The GameStop stock frenzy, explained”
I look forward to the future where I can no longer share my salary nor investing plans with my co-workers.
On “Robinhood, Reloaded”
Same... their hook is commission-free trades plus easier access to RH-Gold which allows Margin trading under all the usual conditions. Their app is "easy to use" but looking at it, it's just modern design without the usual clutter of, say, TDAmeritrade or E*trade both of which I've used. There's nothing in TDAmeritrade that makes it more-sophisticated when it comes time to click BUY.
But RH-Gold and Margin trading seem to be a new thing that Milennials think is a trap laid just for them.
I can get Margin trading at any brokerage... but most of us GenX'rs don't... cause we grew up with people who were alive in 1929.
Milennials discovered Margin Trading and didn't have the spectre of 1929 haunting their investing habits.
This is the pitch:
Our mission is to democratize finance for all. Earning revenue allows us to offer you a range of financial products and services at low cost, including commission-free trading. Here’s how we generate the majority of our revenue:
Rebates from market makers and trading venues
Robinhood Gold
Stock loan
Income generated from cash
Cash Management
Read on for more detail on how we make money:
The cautionary tale Saul keeps alluding to isn't all that cautionary because the poor soul wasn't in the red, hadn't been loaned $1M, mis-read a settlement/balance statement and likely killed himself for reasons bigger than the trigger event (as is usually the case)... though a sad tale no matter what.
"
Narrator: But they did have a liquidity crisis.
Eh... there's still something off about this. I believe the technical explanation that they have to maintain a settlement balance to cover the various baseline + risk factors required by the clearing houses... no problem. What I don't believe is the non-technical explanation that they were "embarrassed" to admit they had to borrow to cover the settlement float? The second part? That's what we call a cover story.