JakeTheAndroid

So, does that actually matter? At what point are consumer expectations unreasonable?

Also, how did people get the idea that a private service is a public utility? When was the tipping point in which Facebook stopped just being a private social network and started being a public utility? And was this disclosed anywhere? How does a shift from a protected private service transition formally to a public one? Is it purely based on consumer perception?

It seems odd to me that the entire internet is a public square, yet Facebook should be democratized. You can leave that walled garden at any time and setup a blog. What part of a town square requires your voice is effectively heard?

It seems like when people were saying that calling Tesla's autopilot was confusing consumers because they don't know what actual autopilot for aircraft is.

Well my intuition says the opposite and that those numbers seem to track with my expectations.

A large bulk of users likely never sign up for PH, making it harder to vet individuals to make sure they wont report the content. People show up with pretty much one thing in mind when going to PH and it's not really to interact with communities. Facebook has so much reach and such a large userbase that it's harder to moderate, and it's used for exactly what these groups want to do.

If we were only talking about close to 18 yo CSAM, sure that I could believe might be something that is more common on PH. But when looking at the entirety of CSAM, I just find it hard to believe that people would risk uploading a video that clearly has a child in it to a service that actively moderates video content primarily to a community that, en masse, doesn't like the content.

There could be some tabulation issues, but I find it hard to believe it's so poorly counted that it would make up a meaningful difference between the two numbers provided.

Yeah, someone else corrected me here as I inverted inflation in the wrong direction. It doesn't change the logical premise of the strength of money changing is what will motivate increased value in stocks either way.

I was tired and only half paying attention, but I should have vetted this better before posting it. My bad.

Thank you for the correction. The logic applies the same, but I did invert the effects.

Here is a list of stuff that was released in May, 2020. 2 months removed from the response to the pandemic: https://www.lofficielusa.com/film-tv/the-best-movies-and-tv-...

Not 100% of that was completely new IP, but it was new. And there were even new things released in April. I admit it was far lower than what would likely have been released without covid, but there was content being put out still. I admit that I was annoyed with the lack of content, and still am. But to suggest that I filled that time with stock trading seems like a stretch.

Also, none of this addresses my other point. Individual investors do not make up a majority of stock purchases. So to assume that the average Joe being bored at home lead to rallies in retail stocks just doesn't jive. What does jive is the decline in other investment opportunities and having large firms shift their investments into the only options they really had; Stocks and real estate.

However, real estate even became too prohibitive for a lot of investors due to the fed rate cut leading to tons of home buying. This is a sector that is largely composed of individual investors. Therefore, they were forced into stocks exclusively.

I would simply need a lot more data to support that individuals being bored lead to massive movements in stocks. in 2016 14% of stocks were owned by individual investors. Let's assume a 100% increase due to the media drought and thats 28%. That is not enough to truly influence large parts of the market into the hikes we've seen. Especially considering that during this time there was a lot of financial uncertainty for these individual investors. Many didn't know if they'd have paychecks coming in (take a look at the mortgage forbearance to see how many people assumed they wouldn't have money). So how many new investors joined in on their piece of the pie when they were also strapped for cash? I'd be surprised if it was 100% increase. The only people that could take advantage of the dips were people that had were likely already in the market and had consistent money coming in.

Infinite growth isn't necessarily the concept. While it's somewhat related, there is a bit of a divergence here.

As I said in another comment, stocks will naturally rise at the very least due to inflation. Prices will go up because the value of the dollar goes up, and the companies perceived value is still roughly the same and grew with inflation.

If inflation is on average around 2%, then stocks ideally increase 2% year over year. This can happen to infinity. That's not the same as infinite growth, but it does hit a lot of the same concepts.

Add this to efficiencies over time, expansion of service offerings which might include capturing new verticals, companies have plenty of room for growth.

This is also why people invest into specific stocks depending on their objectives and risk tolerance. Investing in Apple isn't likely to make you a crap load of money today. But, it's fairly stable. It should outpace inflation so it's a good way to save money with a higher possible yield than say a high interest savings account.

You can also apply this to dividend stocks. Some people make their gains off constantly returning dividends even if the stock itself doesn't increase drastically year over year.

And then you factor in that a lot of companies don't have physical products today. So you can squeeze out even more gains because you can have a relatively fixed cost pricing model that scales well. This is more and more common today than 30 years ago.

As for bringing in an externality like climate change, in an ideal capitalistic situation you'd have companies that would pop up that address these issues thus creating value.

But, if we look at these types of existential threats (which I totally believe are real and matter, don't want to twist that at all) they essentially collapse our current economic system. Therefore, literally nothing matters in terms of buying or selling stocks. We will be facing a massive global crisis that overshadows economic gains to the point that the stock market doesn't matter, and fiat currency is largely diminished.

IDK if that is a perfect take at all. Sports plowed on, new shows, movies, and games were released. The only thing I see that went down was the available investments that could be made.

If you are an investor you are going to have a hard time investing into companies because there aren't going to be a lot of physical companies being founded and you'll see a decrease in internet companies being founded. Also, starting a business would be seen as risky with the unclear future of the pandemic and its impact on the economy.

This is why we seen stock and real estate investments rise. You add that to the fed rate cuts, and these are basically the only two mainstream investments that can be made.

Most investors into stocks aren't individuals like you and me who would otherwise go out dancing or go to bars. While there was a surge of individual investments, the bigger firms are attributed for creating the huge waves in the markets. Do you think that Warren Buffet/Berkshire decide to invest in retail stocks because he was bored due to not being able to go out clubbing? And when he buys stocks in something it outpaces what the entirety of WSBs does in puts/calls. And thats just one firm.

So, I find it hard to believe that the lack of entertainment (which was only really an issue at the very beginning of the pandemic, as baseball/basketball/football all carried on and plenty of games/shows/movies have come out) is the cause here.

Well, with things like inflation these stocks HAVE to go up. A dollar in 2022 is stronger than a dollar in 2020 so stocks need to AT LEAST outpace inflation to make it worthwhile at all.

Now, government bailouts is a different can of worms and I am not entirely sure my opinion on that. Generally I would have to say I am against it, as it doesn't actually favor businesses that can properly adapt to the markets and new blockers. But, things like dropping the fed rate to encourage consumer spending does seem okay to me.

If we removed bailouts then there would be risk involved. And there is still risks involved in stocks. Not all stocks only go up. Nikola is basically a pump and dump scheme that likely wont be around in 3 years to grow with the rest of your portfolio. Plenty of companies seem flash growth and then equalize down to something more reasonable.

However, in general, if you buy diverse stocks and ETFs or index funds you should only see it go UP over 10-20 years. You will have dips, and you can even have a recession. The people most impacted by dips in stocks are people trying to retire during that retraction period.

What you described seems to be like intuition though. Stocks are high, people can't afford them and they cannot see a lot of growth. When stocks drop you can capture more growth potential for cheaper. So it seems like a natural progression that people would buy back into the markets, thus helping the markets stabilize.

If you take a look at 10 or 30 year trends then it's not really that optimistic at all. For instance, Detla Airlines was at 60 bucks a share before things tanked. There was talk about airline bailouts etc.

I bought it at around 20 dollars a share. This was the riskiest stock I purchased as it was theoretically possible they'd completely dissolve. But, at 20 dollars a share Delta should eventually go back up to 60. It might take 10 years for Delta to get back to 40 but it'd still be profit.

Anyone trading on a time scale of less than a few years is basically always optimistic. Buy and hold is generally the safest strategy. And the famous quote is timing in market beats timing into the market. In March you were able to effectively get on both trains simultaneously.

> - Cheaters don't stay in low ratings for long. If they aren't detected, they'll be out of your rating in no time, like in 2 or 3 wins. This reduces the chance you'll encounter cheaters, because if a cheater plays 100 games but only 2 of them are in your rating bracket, you're unlikely to ever match against them anyways.

If only this applied to Counter-Strike or other FPS. While those that are trying to hack discretely rise to Global fast, there are a lot of cheaters that aim to stay in high Silver or low Nova. Add this to the fact that many cheaters suck at cheating, they can absolutely get stuck in lower ranks because they tactically cannot outplay better opponents without blatantly cheating.

This is a bit different from cheating in Chess and Starcraft where mechanical skill and the design of the game makes cheats less impactful. Like, cheating in Dota is really just wider POV, complete map awareness and spell casting macros. But those are just a few aspects of the game. In FPS games, the mechanical skill weighs so heavy that you will have a bad time at any rank against any cheater.

Yeah, and I think this drives the point home even further. You really want a risk mitigation strategy for YouTube's hostile actions against creators. It's been a slow but steady creep. So, if your business is built off the back of something like Facebook, or YouTube, or Instagram, you probably want a backup plan.

I've seen a few YouTubers have a centralized site for signups and support where they host all their content. While the YT revenue is important, they at least have a way to engage their consumers should something terrible happen. This is BCP in a nutshell.

I personally don't mind not getting the entire season at once. While I do want to binge, I also like the delayed gratification you get from watching a series spread out. Part of the reason I want to binge everything is because there is no new content. It's self defeating insofar that new content becomes old the same day it comes out.

And for a production company, churning through years of work in a day only to start demanding a second season has to be rough. I can't imagine it's helped studios in terms of timelines.

1. They don't need to be Uber, and their path to getting cash flow is very different than Uber. They seem to be taking more of a Rivian approach, where they get to kick costs to someone else while providing the tech to allow these companies to do something new. Unsure why they would need 10b+ capx to make their business work.

2. Arizona doesn't always have nice weather. Haboobs, fog during the winter mornings/nights, monsoon season with heavy rain and hail. There are plenty of weather conditions in Arizona. And if building the visual recognition is the easy part, what is the hard part?

3. Fair, but that is already something their parent company does as another business; Maps/Earth. There is nothing to suggest they CAN'T do this on roads they haven't seen before, but it's obviously far safer to do this on roads they know.

4. They partnered with Daimler to make self driving trucks who couldn't use Uber to move shipments. They aren't competing with Uber necessarily.

As for Tesla, there is nothing to suggest they are doing it the right way. They have had numerous self driving failures.

I'm curious if it's because political news is so messed up. Like, if we read tons of positive articles regarding good things being done, I doubt we'd see the same impact.

Which highlights your point imo. If we change the way politics is done, then we can eliminate this issue. But it requires being politically informed.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Competence is demonstrated over time, not in a vacuum of individual decisions. Someone that is competent at Chess proves it over an entire game. A novice can still make a few good moves over the course of that same match.

Pretty much any competency can be demonstrated that way.

It could be the ITP blocking or your DNS setup. If I had to guess it'd be the AWS setup you have as that is not seen as a client IP for a home network.

The interstitial page you're seeing attempts to validate IP location, HTTP headers, and the query string at the very least. So the fact that your requests look like they are coming directly from an AWS IP would, based on my gut feeling having troubleshot tons of these issues at CF, cause this issue.

If you're ever curious you might want to try and hit a site you know serves you these pages regularly without the VPN setup just to isolate the problem.

Oh I wasn't aware that was purely caused by Unions!! And you chose the EU country with one of, if not THE highest unemployment rate.

Every country has issues. To say that Unions don't work when the EU has a strong union culture, and then scapegoat other issues in random EU countries is intellectually dishonest.

Spain has insane unemployment rates because of generations of poorly thought out policies, not unions. They basically had a similar setup to Greece where tons of people don't pay taxes, and it survives heavily off tourism and produces few other things to make up for the tourism economy. Any country that generates MOST of its economy from tourism is going to have a rough time. We've seen it time and time again.

None of this proves the EU is a hell hole, and it has no inherent relation to unions.

While the President himself may have been chosen democratically, there is a reasonable position one can hold that says his actions in office are not democratic. And THOSE are not democratically chosen. We don't have to vote as a group on every word or policy Trump wants to pass. We don't get to vote against him blocking access to relevant people required to finish a DoJ investigation.

So, if their objection was that Facebook should alter the results of the election, yes that would be crazy.

But thats not the perspective afaik. You're throwing out basically all the actual context just to post this fairly narrow and worthless sentence that misses what they are actually protesting.

How many lies or simply misleading information has come out of Trumps admin and by extension the news sites/commentators that are widely shared as fact on Facebook? It seems reasonable that people working on the platform aren't super stoked they are contributing to poor COVID responses and fake/deadly "cures" among the myriad of other pieces of misinformation spread across the platform which heavily leans towards Trump.

So...yeah I think you're appropriating what they are saying so you can say something entirely unrelated.

I think there's a difference between thinking options are worth zero, and not buying them or going to companies you expect to be worthless.

I doubt most people go to a company they expect will literally have no value. If you're going to a private company it's either because you think it will be valuable, you think the work is interesting which could possibly make it valuable, you get an insane salary offer or because you can't find another job.

In basically every case, you understand the company has possible value, which could translate into increased wealth.

The idea is simply that its not worth anything until it is. Once you're in the company and can feel out the actual trajectory and faith in the business, you can decide if you want to buy the shares.

Nearly everyone I've worked with across multiple companies have purchased up most or all their shares, even when they expressed how little faith they had in the company. If you're doing that, what does it matter if you sat down and crunched the numbers? You still got the lottery ticket.

I am also not a lawyer, but I think this sentence is what does it:

> actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States

Illegal isn't always a cognizable (ie: perceptible; clearly identifiable.) felony by a court. In this case, not only did the two hackers clearly commit a felony, the lack of reporting it lead to the exact same type of breach conducted by the same two individuals against another site Lynda.com.

That suggests they had clear evidence of a felony and knew of intent to commit future felonies. And the two hackers were caught and going through the court stuff now, they even plead guilty. So thats basically a slam dunk on a cognizable felony.

The same two people that carried out the Uber hack also hit Lynda.com while after using basically the exact same methodology. So, it would seem possible that they had credible evidence of a felony with intent to commit future ones.

I believe the parent implication is that he aligns with CF's way of doing business in regards to disclosure of security issues.

I think they do get told, just not in as direct of a manner.

Different things get dispelled that changes their foundation that Santa relies on. Such as magic isn't real. Without magic, how can Santa perform his job?

As they get older, it becomes 'childish' by peers to believe in things people 2 years younger believe.

Media created for the demographic starts hinting at the possibility of parents being Santa.

They're fed enough information over the years to piece it together by themselves.

I have built an entire no belt factory. It works for the most part but damn it's slow. I do transition a lot of the technical debt from the green and red sciences so I can properly support the rest of the science development.

I saw plenty of head scarves in Tel Aviv and no one seemed to be concerned. I could see you getting the full pat down walking into the mall or a store. Whereas my very white American looking features meant they kinda waved their arms over me like metal detectors.

Either that, or in the wake of this some other company finds a way to achieve this same result in compliance with the laws and captures the market. I think both outcomes would be acceptable.

I mean, before Steam this was basically the state of gaming. No community, limited features, spotty performance. This is just teething issues. There is no reason a platform like Stadia can't work in the future as these things get better.

And, in terms of downloading gigs from afar, you're already doing that, but instead of being able to play games while downloading you have to wait to download 60gb of COD updates, consume your entire PS4 drive with a single game. And while that is happening, you're just sitting there not using your PS4 because opening another application pauses the download.

We are starting to see more cross platform support for games between PS4, XBO, and PC. But older games won't ever support cross platform between Windows, OSX, and *Nix. A browser port could easily change that.

> Why does "the web" try to recreate existing technologies and operating systems?

It's the same trend we've had since basically the dawn of computers. We move things into deeper abstraction layers. Why is this an issue in your opinion? Isn't more options better? Isn't ideal to adapt old concepts to new implementations? At the very least does it not provide potential educational value?

While plenty of people will likely move over to Valorant, as someone who's played a bit I think there is still a distinct difference between the two games.

The main thing shared between the two is the feel while shooting. It's hard to explain, but you feel the "weight" of the gun and it's rate of fire really well and it's satisfying when you land shots.

But, the abilities, while not overly broken, does change the feel and strategy considerably. And Valorant maps are really bad in comparison to CSGO. So much useless space, bad angles, etc.

So, while I hope Valorant pushes CS to get better, it's unlikely that the pool of players or viewers will be 1:1. The CS pros moving to Valorant are basically doing so because they either can't have a CS career (Brax, perma ban for match fixing; iBuyPower) or haven't been good enough in a while/never were good enough for a T1 CSGO team.

As someone that lives in Oakland, I don't see much of a difference in terms of quality of life between when the police were beating people or killing people at BART stations compared to the extended amount of time we've lacked a police chief and the police as a whole basically disappeared.

I'm white, so the interaction with society during the completely corrupt OPD wasn't really ever a concern for me. I expect plenty of black residents are much happier now than they were then. I don't see MORE crime now than before, and I don't expect the police to ever show up if I call.

So, disbanding the police force isn't necessarily going to equate to complete and total anarchy. Most people don't break the law because we want to exist within the social contract that's established. Police can help enforce that contract, but they're not strictly required.

The reason you don't understand how we raised so much money is because you don't understand how the business works apparently.

Unless you're saying all credit card companies are the same as predatory payday loans or subprime loans, Brex is no different.

Brex is required to do underwriting to determine the amount of credit that can be provided to a company. Underwriting has legal thresholds that must be met. Brex is required to have AML processes in place.

And unlike most corporate cards, there is no personal guarantee owned by the founders. And since we have a fairly high threshold to qualify, it hedges risks for both parties. It's not like Brex is handing out 50k in credit to a 10 person startup with no VC.

payday loans and subprime debt targets people that cannot afford to pay what they take out. I am not sure how you think that is even remotely close to what Brex, Amex, SVB, or anyone in the space is doing. Brex isn't entirely unique, but it's also not predatory.

And, if you take some time to learn the industry, you can see that there are plenty of areas that are legacy that are due to be rebuilt and re-examined. Whether we at Brex will be the ones to properly innovate in that area remains to be seen, but I am pretty confident we are at least moving in the right direction.

Disclaimer, I work at Brex.