Third party apps represents user control of the experience, which is unacceptable for the profit maximizing executives leading up to an IPO. The end goal of every big tech platform is to control the experience fully for ad delivery or other nefarious ends. To us, it is enshittification. To them, it is profit capture. It will happen again and again before we as a society establish safeguards against such abuse. It happened with Facebook, it's happening with Twitter and Reddit, and it will happen with Discord and other such platforms.
You're trying to cut out the middle man in learning how to cook.
It doesn't need to be complicated. Everyone who cooks knows the answers to these questions because they can remember that time their oil started smoking or they burnt this or undercooked that. Just start trying it, you'll learn as you go.
Is the plan to secure a fully-mined chain just rampant value-inflation in a way that is completely detached from supply and demand? Today my 1e-1000 bitcoin is worth 10 carrots, tomorrow it is worth 20 everything else held equal? How does that even work in practice?
Alternatively you need transactions to pay entirely for the security of the chain. This doesn't seem feasible when chain security costs rise everyday as the cost of energy deceases. And if transaction fees increase to compensate and people transact less the whole thing blows up.
The "official" plan is for low-value transactions to happen on the Lightning Network and high-value (e.g. >$1M) transactions paying high fees to happen on-chain.
Lets assume they solve all the math challenges with the routing: The on-boarding is still a challenge as it demands one initial on-chain transaction.
If 10% of the current facebook users want to get on lightning and we can make 6 transactions per second it will take 17 months before all are on board - and this is assuming no other types of transactions (so any payment made with BTC will delay this)
I'm not really convinced a low traffic SE article proves the opposite however.
While wsb is on the verge of going full Q'Anon, I find it equally curious how people seem to be willing to deny foul play when you have people like Jim Cramer confessing/bragging to it.
Search for "short ladder" online, all the results I can find are literally days old, many from reddit itself.
Beyond that, the burden of proof is clearly on the "short ladder"-believing crowd, and so far what they have come up with is frankly embarasing.
I have zero problem believing that hedge funds would be more than willing to engage in shady behaviour if it can save them a billion or two, but screaming the nonsensical "SHORT LADDER" every time a highly pumped stock drops is ridiculous.
Does shady stuff happen? Yes. But the short ladder attack is a dumb idea promulgated by people who don't know how things work, and the proof it's happening, fractional prices, is even more spectacularly stupid. This is "how can there be more votes than voters" levels of crazy.
The observation was that during the duration of restricted trading and therefore reduced momentum, there had been sequences of trades with batches of 100 shares sold at continuously smaller values with very little difference between one batch and the next and the difference was in 3rd and 4th decimals.
The fact that retail was restricted to selling and hedge funds were not, further corroborates foul play.
> there had been sequences of trades with batches of 100 shares sold at continuously smaller values with very little difference between one batch and the next and the difference was in 3rd and 4th decimals
This sounds like the interaction between run-of-the-mill execution algorithms.
Bidding algo is likely a market maker putting out small quotes (100 shares is a standard lot) and adjusting down (up) the price each time the bid (offer) is hit (lifted). Selling algo trying to liquidate a larger block without moving the market. It is hitting the top bid from time to time. If those two are the only market participants talking for a few milliseconds, they'll walk down the price in 100-share increments. Given how volatile GameStop was, I suspect the predatory algorithms, who sniff out this sort of stuff, were offline.
> Do you have any links that further elaborate or perhaps suggestions for papers/books in algo trading?
One of the things I'm realizing from all this is there aren't many good, succinct sources on market microstructure. It's complicated. But it's not that complicated. (It's just usually boring.)
The best I can recommend is how I learned it. Start with a respected paper [1]. Trace through the references until you find something you understand. Then work your way forward.
Gnome on Wayland works pretty great for me. (No issues with brightness etc). Occasionally I log into an X11 session because Wayland screen sharing doesn't work that great.
Well, if people are paying for it with Tether and it turns out Tether is backed by loans or other cryptocurrencies then it would be by definition artificially inflated.
The allegations were thrown out by every court they got brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce and you're the sheep getting fleeced.
> I’m tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing or “Laches”)
The “laches” dismissals were not of fraud claims (frankly, neither were the rest, as the campaign either did not include or voluntarily withdrew fraud claims fairly consistently: fraud is something they liked talking about in forums that couldn’t adjudicate claims, but avoided in ones that could; but this is more stark with the laches dismissals.) Every single laches dismissal was of a claim not of fraud, but of changes to election procedures by state executive or local officials that were alleged to be not properly authorized by the state legislature, and the laches dismissals were because the changes at issue were well-known with plenty of opportunity to file challenges before the election when the remedy, were the procedures improper, could have included reversion of procedures, but the claims were, without good cause, delayed until after the election, preventing any remedy which would not have unreasonably adversely impacted the rights of third parties, specifically, the voters who voted in the election held with the challenged procedures.
- The Trump/Russia situation resulted in the senate agreeing that Russia did collude with members of the Trump campaign in support of Trump. [1]
- Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of "no evidence." [2]
- The supreme court has rejected every lawsuit brought to it on the basis of "no evidence." [3]
While the Russia investigation lead to the arrest of nearly every 2016 Trump campaign manager, the allegations of voter fraud across 10 states has led to nothing that could overturn the election.
> Investigations into the voter fraud and election tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of “no evidence.”
That’s not actually true. While some may have been dismissed based on insufficiency of presented or proffered evidence to support the legal claim, most were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for legal threshold issues (failure to state a claim, lack of standing, unreasonable delay in filing [laches]) which come before considering evidence.
1. The evidence provided for election fraud was investigated, and no widespread fraud was found.
2. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated because there were credible reasons to be concerned. The election fraud issue is entirely (and transparently) manufactured, and everyone in power knows it.
Well thats the problem, the suits were dismissed out of hand. Very little evidence presented. Despite something like 1000 people swore affidavits of violations.
They should have taken the cases and heard the evidence.
Foremost, I blame the supreme court, it chickened out from hearing the Texas Lawsuit, which was about the state Governors changing the election rules on unilaterally.
If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing .
No, it wasn't the problem, and you are willfully or blindly misinterpreting what happened.
The complete lack of evidence and lack of anything but witness testimony was the first stage - as soon as any witness was interviewed it became immediately clear that there was in fact, no evidence at all.
Repeating this "things were dismissed out of hand" meme is true only in the sense that if a man came into court and said he was king of america he would also be given very little space to waste the courts time.
Pennsylvania had 200,000 more votes than voters. What do you mean no evidence? Still no good explanation.
Since this is probably going to get flagged, like my previous post. This is what was entered into the record, during the objections yesterday in the joint session of congress. I stayed up watching it. So I'm not making this up.
How is the statement from the Pennsylvania Department of State admitting that Rep. Ryan's claim is correct?
The problem is that there's an implicit assumption in Rep. Ryan's claim that the SURE numbers are complete and represent the actual number of voters who actually voted. If a few counties have not completed uploading their vote histories, then that implicit assumption is invalidated, thereby invalidating the rest of the claim.
> And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually the case here.
The burden of proof is on Rep. Ryan to show that the over- and under-voting in 2020 is nefarious/fraudulent/malicious. Merely saying that over- and under-voting exists is not sufficient to show something is wrong; one also needs to show that such a thing does not happen in "clean" elections. Pennsylvania is merely pointing out the gap in the analysis here.
See sibling reply, your purported evidence just went up in a puff of smoke.
Although I have a feeling you'd rather wave your hand and say "Aah, Snopes, what do they know, and it's not concrete enough!".
The problem with the "1000's of people with sworn affidavits of violations" is, it seems their understanding what a violation is, are based on misinterpreting (deliberately or not) and wishful thinking. I've seen the videos of people commenting "Look at this security camera footage, they're taking boxes, and those boxes have fake ballots!", without even showing how he came to those conclusions. I could just as easily show a footage of a man walking into a building and claim it's a building where voting machines are stored and he's a hacker with a USB stick that will hack all the machines. I hope all the affidavits were looked at carefully before being dismissed, but it seems like the courts would have work until the sun burns out if it wants to look at every theory.
Despite something like 1000 people swore affidavits of violations.
Not sure why the number of affidavits is so important, and how many of these affidavits were from that form people were filling out a form on a website?
If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing.
Assuming that "spikes" in a graph are proof of anything wrong at all, if the answer is "That's where a bunch of votes were added to the count." then what is the followup from there that necessitates a hearing of any kind?
You could easily get 1000 Americans to swear that Elvis is alive or they were abducted by aliens or just about anything really. Without corroborating evidence, affidavits are meaningless.
There are something like half a million election workers. They're just regular people. It wouldn't be hard to find 1000 of them who are willing to lie or can't distinguish fantasy from reality.
I'd imagine more than 1000 of them believe the earth is flat and/or was created 10,000 years ago.
Twitter suspending/banning for violations of policy is discrimination in the same way barkeeps throwing unruly patrons out of the bar is discrimination.
Depends on the policy. Obviously harassing or obscene speech is one thing and even the government is free to restrict it in certain ways (eg. you're not allowed to scream obscenities in public.) Viewpoint-based discrimination is given much more scrutiny, however, and there's a good argument that that's what Twitter et. al are engaging in. Which is less like "throwing unruly patrons out" and more like "calling people whose ideas you dislike unruly and then throwing them out", which is obviously discriminatory.
Only if the barkeep walks past a hundred other patrons at least as unruly as that one patron is, and the barkeep's history suggest he's spending most of his time focusing on the unruly patrons that he disagrees with politically. All while his policies and public statements claim otherwise.
The purpose is to lock down API access to extract value from AI training.