8
points
dyslexit
Joined 1,074 karma
- This is exactly what the article is arguing people are doing when betting on the Jesus thing:
> [Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
...
> Has this galaxy-brained trade ever gone well? Yes! In late October of last year — a week before the election — Kamala Harris was trading around 0.3% in safe red states like Kentucky, while Donald Trump was trading around 0.3% in safe blue states like Massachusetts. On election day, these prices skyrocketed to about 1.5%, because “No” bettors desperately needed cash to place other bets on the election. Traders who bought “Yes” for 0.3% in late October and sold at 1.5% on election day made a 5x profit!
- This opens the door for fully legalized bribery. Which is already happening. The SEC recently asked a judge to halt its own investigation into Justin Sun for fraud after he bought $75 million worth of Trump's WLF coin, $56 million of which went directly to Trump, immediately after the election. The case now will likely get dropped completely.
What's to stop foreign governments from doing the same thing, if they aren't already?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/02/sec-fraud-prose...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-26/justin-su...
- The only reason he tried to get out of it was because tech stocks tanked shortly after the bid and he knew he could have gotten it for far cheaper than the $44B. The entire time it was happening I was convinced that if he could get out of the bid he would immediately make another one for around $30B and still buy his favorite addiction. People like him and their motivations aren't that hard to read.
He wasn't _forced_ to buy anything. He was forced to pay what he promised for it.
- As I said, it means parents who don't want their young children seeing porn (whether you agree with them or not) would no longer be able to let their children use SD. I'm not making a statement on what our society should or shouldn't allow, I'm pointing out what _is currently_ the standard in the United States and many other, more socially conservative, countries. SD would become more heavily regulated, an 18+ tool in the US, and potentially banned in other countries.
You can have your own opinion on it, but surely you can see the issue here?
- This question narrows the scope of "safety" to something less than what the people at SD or even probably what OP cares about. _Non-random_ CSAM requests targeting potentially real people is the obvious answer here, but even non-CSAM sexual content is also a probably a threat. I can understand frustration with it currently going overboard on blurring, but removing safety checks altogether would result in SD mainly being associated with porn pretty quickly, which I'm sure Stability AI wants to avoid for the safety of their company.
Add to that, parents who want to avoid having their kids generate sexual content would now need to prevent their kids from using this tool because it can create it randomly, limiting SD usage to kids 18+ (which is probably something else Stability AI does not want to deal with.)
It's definitely a balance between going overboard and having restrictions though. I haven't used SD in several months now so I'm not sure where that balance is right now.
- > The harm to society of people who need them not getting pain drugs far outweighs the pain to society of those who don’t need them abusing them.
How do you measure that? Opioid overdoses accounted for at least 72,800 deaths last year [0] and there are countless more addicts out there whose entire lives are ruined because of that addiction. Many of those people, if they ever recover, will never take opioids again for any real medical pain relief like you did for your wisdom teeth because of the very real risk of relapse. Additionally, opioid withdrawal is, according to almost everyone who's gone through it, is one of the worst experiences you can feel.
I'm not taking the side that it definitely doesn't outwheigh the need of those who genuinely need them. On the whole I actually probably agree with that. But stating that so confidently and ignoring the very real pain, lost lives, and broken families caused by opioid addiction because you had your wisdom teeth pulled and wanted opioids feels pretty dismissive and not a serious argument.
- You can argue whether or not Palestinians deserve the response, but what makes you think Hamas does not represent Palestinians? A recent poll by the Arab World for Research and Development shows that 75% of Palestinians support both the October 7th attacks and Hamas's vision of a single, Palestinian-only state. And Hamas's vision to achieve this state is actual, literal genocide.
- 247 points
- Unfortunately for the rest of the world climate change doesn't wait to see what a Congress hamstrung by one political party that denies its very existence is going to do. That change has no political reality of coming from that branch, neither now not in any reasonable future that's going to matter.
- > The narrative has evolved to suit the deficiencies of the vaccine and keep profits from sinking.
The narrative may have evolved but that was more due to the virus evolving rather than some conspiracy driven by Pfizer and Moderna to sell more shots. More people being vaccinated benefits everyone, not just the pharmaceutical companies, and saying otherwise is a bit paranoid.
- 187 points
- 232 points
- I'm not sure how this can be broken down any more clearly. The customer is always losing money when they ask for a refund if they pay for the Tesla with BTC unless the price of BTC is exactly the same as it was when the purchase is made. Tesla chooses whether it pays the customer back in BTC or USD. It's pretty clear language. There's nothing that tptacek said that is wrong.
- It is what the clause says, you cut it off just before they say it.
> If you are entitled to a refund of your payment or to a buyback, we reserve the right to refund to you either the exact Bitcoin Price that you provided to us at the time of purchase or an amount of US Dollars that is equivalent to the US Dollar price of the product that you purchased, at our sole and absolute discretion, taking into consideration operational efficiency.
Social media companies becoming more consolidated and influential might be legal and good for their stakeholders but it doesn't mean it's a net positive for the rest of the world. And unfortunately, as much as so many people like to believe otherwise, being a net negative to society absolutely does not lead to a company becoming irrelevant.