kyrieeschaton

Do we need scare quotes around "censorship" when reddit is telling them particular names are unmentionable in any context?

Anyone who believes that "master" is some kind of slur and takes the opportunity to take offense over it is not someone you want causing problems in your organization.

Have you heard of "cowboys"?

Not true. There is a reason why people sort products by popularity. This is just a variation.

People interested in this approach should compare Rich Hickey's Datomic.

Because Asians broadly speaking do not depend on favors from the ruling elite for their position, thus they are politically unreliable (although currently mostly aligned with them).

https://spandrell.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/

Diversity substantively means fewer whites and asians. The goal is a 100% diverse school system.

Please add this to the column of "things evil right wing twitter anons were investigating years beforehand", so you can update your estimates of their future credibility.

MMT does not depend on or imply the relation between debt and inflation, it addresses the metaphysics of "government debt" as such. In fact it suggests you should not "inflate away the debt", as if governments were subject to an actual fiscal constraint of spending = taxes + borrowing (the premise MMT rejects).

20% of all dollars were created in 2020. The only thing preventing that from translating into the broader price level is that money velocity collapsed due to the Covid shutdowns. Instead most of that has channeled into financial and property asset prices.

Once velocity increases, as is the plan if you assume 2021 is the year we "recover" from Covid restrictions, the Fed will have a choice between inflation and deflating the money supply (eg by selling a huge portion of their accumulated financial assets). The latter implies a rise in interest rates that harms economic recovery and government borrowing costs, potentially reducing available fiscal stimulus.

I would like to read an analysis of how they plan on veeeery carefully extricating themselves from this situation but as far as I can tell the strategy is to wing it.

Those emails are textbook schizophrenia.

"Securities" is a pretty well understood term.

Mutual funds, the most legible way to get an estimate of the holding cost of securities (since they are required to transact at net asset value) routinely charge between 0.2-1% fees, depending on size and asset class.

Clearinghouses, transfer agents, and cash management firms don't work for free, which is the problem that cryptocurrencies explicitly solve; neither do compliance, KYC, fraud, etc., which most cryptocurrency protocols elide altogether.

BTC trivially avoids, eg, chargebacks. It is effectively the only money transmission mechanism that verifiably does do.

Did you know that vanilla financial securities also require upkeep? Approximately 0.5% of the value of all financial assets is burned every year (and potentially an order of magnitude more, depending on what asset and packaging you're talking about).

What's the energy cost of a financial sector that takes a ~3% cut of all retail transactions, puts up physical bank branches to manage money, empowers a federal reserve to manage the value of currency with more or less competency... Comparing BTC energy costs to some mythical world where we just burn free lunches for heat is not honest.

Even fairly strong correlations break down on restricted ranges of inputs. Eg, if you're hiring between 80-90th percentile candidates (top ones get better offers, lower ones get filtered out), yes, the correlation will get swamped by noise; not so much if you are hiring between 0 and 100.

That is specious. People remember during the opening days of the Covid fiasco, when "disinformation" encompassed interpretations of publicly available data that were forbidden exactly until the moment they were mandatory (airborne transmission, fecal transmission, immunological vectors, potential treatments, and so on). In fact it still does!

How much evidence is there that the "reddit onslaught" actually moved the price, as opposed to them being the stalking horse for more sophisticated actors with more capital exercising a vanilla short squeeze strategy?

The important question for any piece of analysis is "would we actually do anything different if this comes out one way or another?"

Simultaenous with pausing buys of GME they were allowing accounts and positions to be opened and margin trades to occur, so it cannot be that they simply needed to limit their capital requirement full stop. The capital requirement is a prerequisite for being in the business and this is not an unforeseen circumstance, it's why they have lines of credit (which in fact they did draw on, just not enough to support the business they purport to be in) on top of their working capital.

He delayed publication for years (in the proverbial desk drawer) while he attempted to develop a positive and politically acceptable spin on the results (self censorship). He is also probably one of the top ten most prestiguous living social scientists. Consider the incentives of researchers with less accumulated social capital who are far easier to attack for their findings.

> Data collected by eminent political scientist suggests ethnic diversity, amongst other things, massively lowers social trust

> "Wow just wow what a 'racist campaign for the return of segregation'"

I wonder why it is so difficult to do or publish research in this area?

Unfortunately most research on social capital and mistrust has been desk-drawered or heavily self censored due to the political implications.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/robert-putnam-and-the-ethi...

https://www.city-journal.org/html/bowling-our-own-10265.html

You can consider "hyperinflation" as a consensus that the government is lying about the value of its currency. How does a consensus develop that someone is lying? It's a complex process, and doesn't have a neatly aggregatable answer.

This is incidentally why Sargent considers the end of hyperinflation to be coincident with a regime change - a liar cannot become credible nearly as easily as he can be replaced.

The circumstances are that an english-tweeting western-sponsored Yale World Fellow with approximately zero actual Russian support found himself "poisoned" (nonfatally, of course) in a way politically useful to the west in their ongoing project of destabilizing Russia, as diagnosed by western security services.

Because they burned 300 million dollars on a massive shift in recruitment priorities and are now having an "oh shit" moment and hiring back people from the ancien regime.

Sure, here's an example of the CIA flatly lying about a separate novichok incident.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/04/cia-director-used-fake...

Security agencies of democratic regimes (that happen to be marginally accountable to the people elected) don't have the ability to synthesize known molecules and use them for political purposes? They don't have the ability to lie under the piercing eyes of lady liberty? That's sort of what they exist for.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/04/cia-director-used-fake...

It's odd to hold as an assumption that the Russian government is the only entity that can synthesize this molecule.

It's also odd to take the word of "a laboratory of the German armed forces" as some sort of independent source in a clear political conflict.

I wonder if they have regrets about their 300 million dollar diversity push.