chlodwig

In the FTX International terms of service ( https://help.ftx.com/hc/article_attachments/9719619779348/FT... ) they say that users have full title, ownership and control of digital assets. They say that the assets are the property of the user, and shall not be loaned to FTX trading, shall not be treated as they belong to FTX trading, and that users control the assets in the account.

So if they did indeed loan out customer deposits, that is just straight up criminal fraud, open and shut. This isn't like some DeFi scheme where they are working around some legal loophole or in the fine print tell you that they will probably lose your money. This is just straight up illegal under the plain vanilla theft and fraud laws of any country. This isn't even a bank run (banks at least tell you they are loaning your deposits out) -- it's a run on a U-Haul self-storage where you find out that they actually sold all the furniture in your storage unit to a pawn shop.

I don't understand this. In FTX International terms of service ( https://help.ftx.com/hc/article_attachments/9719619779348/FT... ) they say that users have full title to digital assets, that they are the property of the user, and shall not be loaned to FTX trading and are treated as they belong to FTX trading, and that users control the assets in the account.

FTX was never claiming to run a bank where they loan out users deposits for interest. They were claiming to be running a 100% allocated, straight up custodial vault. Therefore they should be able to simply return whatever assets customers owned on their service, even if every customer wants their asset back at the same time.

If they were actually loaning out customer's assets and running a fractional-reserve bank, that is just straight up fraud, full-stop.

Things have never worked that way for any other medium. Mass internet access has only been around 15 to 30 years, depending on how you count it and arguably it has had disastrous impact on the well-being and mental health of children.

Yes, parents shouldn't be leaving their kids alone with the internet, but:

1. Many parents are going to a bad job at monitoring their kid's internet and if we can create rules that will leave their children less messed up, we should do so. We all pay a price when parents raise messed up kids.

2. Even for strict parents and well meaning children, it is so, so much easier to access poisonous things on the internet than on other mediums. It is hard to keep it out 24/7, it needs to be harder to access bad things.

3. As a strict parent, it sucks being stricter than all the other parents, sucks having to battle with kids about why their peers can do something they can't. Without common norms and common rules, their is an incentive for parents to defect by being the "cool" parent. And the reality of life is that no matter what parents do, teenagers are in large part "raised" by their peers. Teenagers view their peers as a source of authority because they have to live with their peers of the rest of their lives, peers represent the new generation. So what indulgent parents allow their children to do matters for my ability to parent my own child.

It's an article of clothing which covers of the faces, the facial expressions, the smiles of all their friends and teachers. A typical modern preschool for two working parents is what, 50 hours a week? You are sending your child to a place where they are spending the bulk of their waking hours, the bulk of their socialization, and not allowing them to see smiles. I can still remember the faces of my preschool friends, I am still friends with some. If I had never been able to match smiles with them, would it still be the same? And even if they are fine in the long run, you are still making a year of their life (or more? what is the end game exactly?) significantly worse. It boggles my mind that smart people like yourself are so blase about this.

and then maybe my tribe will still have ICU units available and yours won't.

Masking kids at schools isn't going to have anything to do with this. Denmark has done just fine keeping schools open with no masking ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/denmark-schools-covid-19-pande... ). If ICU's are within two or three doublings of filling up, then shut down the gyms and concerts and indoor dining for adults. If all such things are open, as I believe they are in California, then protecting ICU units is clearly not an imminent concern.

Okay. But I can assure you that kids in Singapore or Taiwan or now California, where mask-wearing is just accepted, grow up just fine.

What? Until coronavirus hit, there has never been a society that kept it's children masked among children from other families at all times. No kid has "grown up" under such conditions.

No it's not. Death rates are less than 1 in 50,000. Death and hospitalization rates are similar to the dangers of the flu or RSV or riding in a car. It's a 100X less dangerous than owning a pool. It's the type of risk we have to be able to live with. And as for long covid, I don't have the study on hand, but there was a study where there was no difference months later in symptoms like fatigue or runny nose in kids that had covid versus did not have covid.

Okay, so your child gets covid isn't vaccinated and you end up finding out when they are in their mid-20s that they are developing some sort of a brain disorder that was brought on by long covid that we are completely unaware of because we don't know what's going to happen with this.

Or maybe they get vaccinated but the vaccine causes some prion disease that does not show up for 10 years. Or maybe a new mutant strain causes ADE in the vaccinated. Life is full of dangerous, speculative unknowns unknowns. But worrying about this kind of speculative, zero-evidence risks is the route to hypochondria.

I don't want anyone to get covid....Yeah we could have an entire year or two of no social encounters or deprived extroverts but think long-term on how we could have a whole slice of humanity that's getting this virus that is basically just messing up how their DNA is going to unfold how all of their proteins are going to unfold basically turning into a whole new research sector.

Based on current U.S. government policy, why is it going to just be a year or two? It's already been a year and a half. What is going to change to make covid magically go away? It's not going away, covid is endemic. You either will have to isolate and wear P100 masks for the rest of your life, or you will get exposed to covid eventually.

1) Is your government adopting a comprehensives and realistic plan to achieve zero covid? (Such a policy must include 100% international travel shut-down, zero exceptions. If there are exceptions, your government does not have a zero covid policy.)

2) Is ICU or hospital usage approaching capacity in your area?

If the answer to those questions is both "no" (as it is in my jurisdiction which is requiring school kids to mask) then your statement is not true. A 21% lower incident rate is not helpful at all, everyone will still all get exposed to covid eventually.

A 50% reduction and we still all get covid. It is actually binary -- either we have a realistic and obtainable plan for zero-covid (which we do not) or everyone gets exposed to covid eventually.

A 50% reduction in spread might be helpful in certain areas where the hospitals are on the verge of being overwhelmed (in which case just close the schools for a few weeks), but in the United States there are a lot of mask mandates in schools being pushed in areas where the hospitals are not under any significant pressure. That is nonsense.

Socializing in masks is massively inferior. It sucks talking to other people and not being able to read facial expressions or to see smiles. Right now American health officials are asking children to an spend the majority of their waking hours for an entire year of their lives (or more??) around friends and teachers without that essential human experience of seeing smiles. That is harm in an of itself. Even if the kids bounce back, and you can't find a developmental difference in any statistic, that year of their life, a year they will never get back, will still have been a year of being deprived of essential human connection.

Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simplified dichotomy.

Or is it disinformation to say, "the rythmn method is an effective form of birth control"?

It's a minor inconvenience at the grocery store.

It's a major inconvenience to wear one at gyms.

It's a major inconvenience with regards to socializing with friends (a core human need), I really hate not being able to read other people's facial expressions when I talk to them.

It's a major inconvenience to require it at schools. It's horrible for kids not to be able to see the facial expressions of their teachers or classmates (especially when learning how to read and pronounce words!).

The thing to keep in mind is that blocking 50% of the particles does not mean a 50% reduction in infection. It may mean a 50% reduction in infection -- or it may mean a basically zero percent reduction. It depends on the exposure.

Say that in a particular covid-filled room you have a 50% chance of being infected after 5 minutes and a 99.9% chance of being infected after an hour. Under a simple model, if you wear a mask that blocks half the particles, your chance of getting coronavirus in 5 minutes would be reduced to 25%, but your chance of getting it after an hour would be 97%. So if cloth mask is your primary defense against covid, you are eventually going to get covid if you are trying to live anything close to a normal life. Blocking 50% of particles is like wearing an condom that only blocks 50% of the sperm or an umbrella that blocks only 50% of the rain.

The funny thing is that it is not like this is some new discovery or new knowledge -- Webster's 1913 dictionary has five oceans: "Ocean: 2. One of the large bodies of water into which the great ocean is regarded as divided, as the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic and Antarctic oceans." https://www.websters1913.com/words/Ocean So you get to feel like you have a more up-to-date education than your grand parents, your kids feel like they have a more up-to-date education than you, and it all is just a cycle of fashion :-P

And it should be noted -- it's not the boys that are the problem it is the schools.

Raise young boys in a way that is completely stifling and unnatural compared to how boys were raised for tens of thousands years based on our evolution, and then diagnose these boys as having a mental problem. No, it is society that has the mental problem.

How about increasing the tax credit that goes to all parent, regardless of they choose to do childcare? Maybe for some parents that would be enough that one parent could quit their job and finally have the joy of spending more of their time with their own kid. I don't see why we should subsidize institutional childcare over other forms of caring for the very young.

I'd argue mostly for 1) and 2).

Here is my model:

1. Men have higher variance on any skill, even if men and women have the same average level, men will outnumber women at the highest and lowest levels by 2 or 3 to 1.

2. The median girl is much more likely to do her busy work because her teacher tells her to. Boys are more likely to do some bit of work only because they see some advantage to themselves. Boys are more likely to do unassigned work if they see some sort of long-term advantage to it (eg, learning programming on the side). The boy of 40th percentile aptitude, who knows he will never have a job doing math, isn't going to try that hard at his math homework. But that same boy might tinker with his car on the side and become a great mechanic.

When we reach the real world, males are finally doing work that has a pay-off, not just busy work. So they actually start trying hard, as compared to schoolwork where the median girl does more homework than the median boy.

The median girl works harder than the median boy at busywork. But when we reach the real world, the top man in a given career path is working just as hard as the top woman, and because of higher male variance, there are more men of top abilities that get the top positions.

On top of that, in my experience, women do make different choices with career paths. Men do seem to seek career paths that pay well, women often want to go into "non-profits" and areas with a "social mission." It's interesting how we moved toward an expectation that women work instead of staying home -- but we taught girls that the purpose of work is "self-actualization", while more men still have the expectation that they are to find a job that can support a family. (These are gross generalizations, and broad trends I have observed, obviously, many exceptions exist).

And as others pointed out, many women, correctly IMO, would much rather stay home with their babies or take a "mommy track" job than take a high-powered career path.

My working hypothesis is that from a few million years ago to 100,000 years ago, our ancestors primarily ate megafauna (80% to 100% of calories) and so that is the diet we are most evolved to thrive off of. In the last 100,000 years, with the rise of agriculture and the extinction of many megafauna, there has been rapid selection pressure for humans to tolerate grains and dairy (and also breeding of tubers and grains to make them much more nutrition for humans). Toleration of plant and dairy food by modern people varies by race and by individual; but everyone can thrive by eating a lot of megafauna.

I am interested in evidence that contradicts this hypothesis -- particularly whether there is evidence that from 100kya to 3mya our ancestors were eating 30% or 50% or 70% or 95% or 100% plants. It doesn't seem like the links you gave me have such evidence. Got anything more convincing? The evidence from dental collagen and brain size energy requirements arguing for an ancestral diet of 80%+ animals seem more convincing to me.