131–140 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.daynaemcraig.com/narcissistsprayer/ “That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did You deserved it.”
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had to venture a guess (and full disclosure I’m not currently working in the space, and am not privy to conversations about actually buying this product), the 100k/m for whatever the contract duration is relatively low stakes to see if there’s utility in the data. Since there is no historical data the only real option is to buy, see if it makes a difference, and dump the product at the end of the contract if it…
Even if it doesn't give any edge in terms of using the data, just paying money into Trump in more ways (i.e. a quasi-legal bribe) is enough of a benefit that I doubt many will drop it. This is a lot cheaper of a bribe than i.e. the gold plaque Tim Apple gave to Trump too.
It’s less directly beneficial than most people think it will be.
If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and then drive on past allowing the law to go unenforced, are they not just as corrupt as the robbers?
Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context. That said: >If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? Like this really does read as: I still blame the Democrats for the crimes of the Republicans. The…
yes, they were. the USA if the Unionists has followed through on reconstruction looks like a utopia compared to now
I don't think anyone would have predicted that Karl Marx would ever end up being as vindicated as he turned out to be.
"But one should not succumb to the illusion that with an analysis of the fundamentals of the capitalist mode of production that everything decisive has already been said about capitalist societies"
Michael Heinrich, Introduction to the three volumes of Capital
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The second the next president is in office every other country will adapt to working with them, just as been happening every 4-8 years. That may well be, with one big difference. Nobody and no country will trust the US or their commitments ever again.
> Nobody and no country will trust the US or their commitments ever again. How do you explain all of the people and countries who are currently trusting the US and their commitments? This is always a strange belief to hold when the current evidence is so overwhelming against it. The rest of the world and the people making decisions know that this administration will come to an end. Something about each new headline c…
You've never seen a crime flick where the soon-to-be-murdered victim goes "I won't call the cops, I swear! Don't hurt me!"
Who's genuinely trusting US commitments right now? Our most stalwart allies sent troops to Greenland as a tripwire force! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arctic_Endurance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you break down the participants in this story in Marxist terms?
Sure. The bourgeoisie in search of more and more profit have nowhere left to go but ransack the heartland. Outward expansion has stalled at a wall called Iran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US also arguably lost the Iran war. So far it can't claim any minor fraction of a victory, at least; seems to be the general consensus. I like to read Bret Devereaux (from the frequently HN posted https://acoup.blog/ ) takes on this in his Bluesky ( https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social )
If everyone has the same conclusion, how is it an argument? Nobody thinks the US won in Iran except the morons that started it. Maybe bigOil feels like its a win as their profits are soaring???
In short the argument is: can the US still win in any sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi... > The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army (check) , the health and numbers of the Roman population (check) , the strength of the economy (check) , the competence of the emperors (check) , the intern…
This is not convincing. Many of these are debatable when you actually pull apart what is meant then and now. But there’s also a long list of things that are different about the Roman Empire and US (and the world) today.
Yeah, we heard that about climate change, too.
We may be Cassandras, but that doesn't make us wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I had to venture a guess (and full disclosure I’m not currently working in the space, and am not privy to conversations about actually buying this product), the 100k/m for whatever the contract duration is relatively low stakes to see if there’s utility in the data. Since there is no historical data the only real option is to buy, see if it makes a difference, and dump the product at the end of the contract if it…
There is plenty of historical data, $100k is a steal for as long as situations like Iran persist. And now he is incentivised to ensure they do persist. Our fearless leader, ladies and gentlemen.
I suspect, having worked in this space for quite a while, that this specific data, faster, is useless and that there are other signals that indicate something is coming before it ends up on social media (esp TS).
Yes, there is historical data about prices moving after TS posts, but what I’m arguing is paying to get it ‘faster’ may not be worth anything if you can achieve that same end (knowing something is happening) through previously established channels.