content_sesh

Investing in real estate is like investing in anything else: you're taking a risk and you can, in fact, lose money. Sounds like some of these landlords were irresponsible and didn't understand that before staking all their capital

> Actually the fact that they were letting people exit trades was a big clue to me that this was risk mitigation while this collusion with citadel narrative was making the rounds.

Ok let's say I'm a retail investor using RH. Why should I need to divine what my brokerage is doing from Twitter posts and Reddit? My should I need to wait hours for their explanation that comes in the form of a handwavey blog post?

Maybe if Robinhood had done literally anything to not appear like they were colluding with their customer Citadel people wouldn't have constructed "false narratives". Its some impressive mental gymnastics to see a broker lock out all of their retail investors (remember, you were completely free to liquidate your position) and offer almost no explanation, and blame the investors for being hasty and jumping to conclusions.

And for that matter, calling these narratives false seems premature. As far as I know there hasn't been any actual investigation by regulators into the reason Robinhood took those steps (although multiple politicians from across the spectrum have called for one). It seems many public figures would love to give Robinhood the opportunity to explain themselves

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Father Caughlin was not a plucky underdog speaking truth to power when he downplayed Kristallnacht and blamed the Jews for their own persecution. The "alledged misinformation" was in fact, genuine misinformation. And the vetting process was immediate global condemnation.

So I've been sober for a couple years now and I've met many others in various stages of their own recovery, and what you're describing sounds extremely familiar. Every person's addiction is unique, but self-isolation is a common trait among alcoholics (and probably people with addictions in general).

One of the best exercises we did in recovery was list out as a group what our priorities in life were. It was things like "my partner", "my career", "my health", "finances & having money to live comfortably", "having friends", etc. And when we were done and were happy with our list, the instructor went up and wrote alcohol at the very top. When you're deep in addiction, even if you know it's not rational, even if it's not what you want, the addiction is your top priority. If you have free time, that's how you spend it first; when you have money, it's the first thing you budget for; when you're doing other things, it's what you think about. And for a lot of people, self-isolation makes it that much easier to feed that addiction.

One of the fatal medical issues was a man accidentally tazering himself to death while trying to loot a portrait of Tip O'Neill, so it seems reasonable to infer that one's "related to the violence"

I"m not sure where you're getting the idea that Jack disagrees with most or even many of Trump's policies.

edit to clarify in response to parent's edit (lol):

I don't doubt Twitter enjoyed being the primary platform for our extremely online president. I was getting at the "political opponents" thing. I feel there's a tendency where people like Jack and Zuckerburg get categorized as "not on the right politically", because they work in tech and live in California I guess. I disagree with that characterization, and my main reason is how they've allowed their platforms to be used.

For a very long time now, I've personally seen Twitter being used to amplify regressive, right-wing views while quashing (via suspension or permanent suspension) leftist voices that challenge them. The best way I can describe it succinctly would be a pervasive double-standard when applying their rules. So I, personally, specifically do not believe that Jack or Twitter leadership have aligned themselves politically against the right.

He's not censored, he's not silenced and there are dozens of ways for him to send out messages, including:

- Press releases

- Holding a news conference

- For emergencies, IPAWS

Twitter not carrying his messages is akin to CNN choosing not to broadcast his rallies. It's not censorship.

In Portland and Seattle this summer, cops gassed entire city blocks and started cracking skulls after a few bottles got thrown at them. But here they practically let the fascist mob walk into the capitol.

And some people say that white privilege doesn't exist...

The perpetual license fallback saved me when my license expired. Due to the US holidays it took our purchasing department a week or two to renew my license. In the mean time I was able to fall back to an older version, and upgrade once my new license came through. It was very easy and straightforward to do in both directions.

So I agree, it's a very honest business model.

The equivalence absolutely has merit. "People thinking dumb things about politics" absolutely has the ability to cause panic, potential injury, and death. You can look at Facebook's role in the Rohingya genocide in Malaysia as a quick example.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/facebook-resists-handin...

So what exactly is the problem here? Youtube (and capital in general) don't like the idea of a contested election leading to political uncertainty and they're using their platforms to advocate for that position. DoorDash and Uber did effectively the same thing with Prop 22 in California; if that's OK then so is this.

I feel for her but this entire line of reasoning and Daniel's Law are hypocritical and self-serving.

For our nation’s sake, judicial security is essential. Federal judges must be free to make their decisions, no matter how unpopular, without fear of harm. The federal government has a responsibility to protect all federal judges because our safety is foundational to our great democracy.

Since Daniel’s death, I have vowed to do everything I can to make similar tragedies less likely. Last month New Jersey passed what is known as “Daniel’s Law,” which prohibits the distribution of personal information, including home addresses and phone numbers, for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.

Where are protections for defense attorneys? Or private citizens who serve on juries - especially in unpopular cases? Surely their sense of safety must also be foundational to our great democracy. This "remedy" here is extremely inequitable, and I'd rather see protections extended to everyone, not just classes that have lawmakers' favor.

Dan's comment about gatekeeping in STEM and dismissing the problem as "some people just can't hack it" rings very true to me.

I remember tutoring undergrad math back in the day; it was a walk-in thing where students would tutor other students and the only qualification required to be a tutor was that you passed the class yourself with a 3.5 or whatever. I recall distinctly one evening helping a group of sophomores with their intro linear algebra homework. It was early in the semester, the deadline for dropping classes was a week or two away, and they just weren't getting it. More than likely they were going to just wash out.

As we were plugging away through an example exercise in the textbook, I said something like "so this is a vector and this is a matrix, so to multiply them you need to do this" and one of them said in exasperation, "well how'd you even know that's what they were??" and it finally clicked that no one had explained to them basic notational conventions. They didn't know that the bold and italic variables in the textbook actually meant something. This was compounded by professors using different notations on the blackboard during lectures - typically lowercase letters with overbars for vectors and poorly-rendered double-struck capital letters for matrices.

It took 5 minutes of listening to understand what the real problem was, and 5 minutes to fix it, but really it just took empathy. I don't know if those students ended up dropping the class - statistically they very well could have. But if they did I hope it was because they found something else to be passionate and curious about, and not because they were bullied out of it.

This visualization is very good. But the Raft paper itself is also quite understandable (and I say this as someone without any formal CS background who struggles getting through papers). It's main goal, aside from correctness, was understandability after all.

https://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi-bin/papers/raft-atc14

I'd estimate it took me about 2 hours to get through it, but it felt very satisfying because I walked away saying "yup, I see how this works now". Give it a shot!

True, but actual service dogs are well trained and will not randomly try to jump on or play with strangers.

I agree with this assessment. I believe home streaming new releases will compete with theaters, but I don't think it will completely replace them. Anecdotally, my wife and her friends all love going to the theater to see movies and I expect they will resume doing so post-pandemic. I am a homebody, but my wife is not; so given the option she would prefer to get out of our house and go to the theater.

What I'm curious about is how this will impact distribution arrangements once theaters do re-open. I could see it going one of two ways:

1. If studios start streaming new releases, they can't offer theaters the same kind of exclusive distribution that they could in the past, allowing theaters to demand more favorable terms

2. Since studios now have alternative distribution channels, they don't necessarily need theaters to distribute their new releases, so studios can demand more favorable terms.

Sacrificing availability I reckon.

> As for “Gust”, my sympathies are severely limited. He remained in a job where he knew his employers were taking the absolute piss out him long enough that he turned toxic himself. I get that changing jobs has its own set of costs and challenges, but thinking that your employer owes you for all your “loyalty” is a fool’s delusion. I’ve been in jobs where management’s been taking the piss while I’ve been burning out, and realizing that environment’s turning me toxic too I’ve walked.[1][2]

Why the lack of sympathy? We don't know from the article how long Gust's been in the industry; this could have been his first experience with a company so dysfunctional. I think you may have missed this bit as well:

> Gust waited until annual bonuses and stock payouts cleared, and served his notice.

Sounds like he remained precisely as long as he needed to once the scales fell from his eyes.

Monetary impact is serving as a proxy and metric for the scope of the problem.

As others have pointed out, not all burglary and larceny is necessarily violent. But you're also missing the point that wage theft is not always a dispassionate contract dispute between equal parties. Especially for those most vulnerable (minimum wage workers, people with medical conditions, people with dependents, the food and housing insecure) there is a massive level of coercion going on as well. These individuals often cannot afford to risk a legal fight to assert their claims to what they're fairly owed.

I have friends who knew their employer was stealing from them and had to forgo things like medications because they couldn't make ends meet that month. Friends in the restaurant industry who've had to skips meals and go hungry while their manager skimmed from the tip pool. It may not meet the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "violence" but it sure seemed like violence to me.

No one is born knowing social norms, so yes I would agree that many if not most men, at some point, struggled. Myself included. But norms change over time and I find the prospect of a sea change like the author seems to suggest, that leaves most (hetero) men simultaneously and suddenly lost, unlikely.

Taking it a step further, too often I've seen hand-wringing arguments that look awfully similar to this author's used as an excuse to minimize some of the worst behavior of men. It is, in fact, possible for the average man to understand things like boundaries and consent. I'm not saying that's what this author is doing, but it sound similar enough that it sets off my BS meter.

It's not true for me, and I do not believe it is for a significant number of men either. My post was tongue-in-cheek

It's also a bad analogy: a dog reacting aggressively to their own image vs a human getting aroused by images of someone else. It's apples and oranges folks! I came up with two much better analogies

1. Ever think a dog is dumb for humping a stuffed animal? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. <- Comparing dog vs. human arousal to external stimulus

2. Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror. <- Comparing dog vs (unusual) human reaction to seeing their own reflection.

> The average single man (emphasis added) paying attention to contemporary social fashions will struggle to understand the new rules of meeting, courting, or having sex with women. Something as banal as trying to converse with a woman wearing headphones is now often considered harassment. A man’s chances of mating success increase when he approaches many women, but so too do his chances of a gaining reputation as sexist, exploitative, or immoral. To take a fraught example, how does a man know that a woman is genuinely consenting to sex? A lack of ability to pick up on cues can incur catastrophic costs.

I don't buy this. Social norms are a product of the group to which the apply. In this passage, that group is "all single people". For argument's sake, lets say heterosexual men make up 40% of that group. The author's claiming that a typical member of that subgroup will not understand the rules? This seems like an extraordinary claim, and I'd really need to see evidence of such a thing happening any time in the past to believe it is plausible.

There are hundreds of attacks every day on HN against people on account of their belonging to a national, racial, or religious group? Guess I've been missing all the spicy comments

I'd like to take a moment to remember my favorite Greenwald story, where he was skeptical of Russian interference in the 2016 election. A whistleblower then provided The Intercept with a document from the NSA proving otherwise.

The Intercept then turned around sent the NSA the letter, asking them to verify it and clumsily burning their source in the dumbest possible way.

It's unfortunate that Glenn's tactic of screaming "DEBATE ME!" at his editors didn't work, and wish Glenn well as he joins the ranks of the other accursed shills, banished from their homelands and forced haunt Twitter whining about cancel culture or whatever.

There is a large difference in the degree of training needed for pilot certification vs. getting a driver's license, and Tesla has already gotten in trouble for misleading claims about its "Autopilot" feature.

So I agree with the parent comment that it is good Cadillac is not overselling their capabilities.

You'd be surprised how far you can get with printed reference material. And especially if you're using mostly "boring"/"mature" technology.

There probably are machines connected to the public internet, but if you need to lock your workstation, walk over to the designated unclassified machine, log in to that, do your search, write down or print the answer, log out of that machine, walk back to your workstation and then unlock it - every time you want to look up a CSS thing - you'd probably just ask your boss to buy you a dang book.

Everything you said is true; making the summons more understandable and reminding people will not solve the structural issues that effectively criminalize poverty in America.

But, it has helped in some cases, and its such low-hanging fruit. If you're working 3 jobs to stop the state from taking your kid, you probably don't have time to waste an hour parsing a user-hostile summons. This certainly doesn't fix everything, but it's a start.

I've found following Strunk's "make every word count" dictum causes me to take much more time when composing. So 4-8 pages per week sounds like it would take an awful lot of time indeed