As a drummer, I believe the title of this article is a little misleading. Such a title better represent cymbal factories that are located in Istanbul that use centuries old manufacturing processes.
Although Zildjian is undeniably iconic, the same could be said about Bosphorus Cymbals and a few other companies I won't name.
Has the title changed since you posted this comment? It's not clear to me why "a 400-year-old cymbal-making company in Massachusetts" would have to imply that the processes are 400 years old, or that the company was always located in Massachusetts, or that there aren't any other old cymbal companies elsewhere.
Missing context in the comment you replied to is that hand made cymbal companies in Istanbul can all be traced back to the old Zildjian factory there
Here I found a news story in English summarizing the situation [1]:
> The Zildjian company moved to the United States in 1929, while Avedis III moved the Zildjian factory to Quincy, Massachusetts, and then to its current location in nearby Norwell for Zildjian’s 350th anniversary.
> ... As one arm of the Zildjian family was building a huge brand in the U.S., those who remained in Turkey continued making cymbals until 1978, when Mikael Zildjian died.
> Tamdeğer said he felt desperate after his master’s death. Following two years of jewelry business in Kuwait, he re-founded the old business with his former colleague, Agop Tomurcuk, another Turkish-Armenian.
You, along with probably most of hacker news, probably just won't understand
- unless you connect with the culture.
To help explain it...
I find what I need from friends and neighbors. I have built a system of trust that operates outside of the typical capitalistic reality that the rest of society runs on. Sometimes it means knowing where stuff was grown and who grew it. Sometimes the trust is more blind - it depends on the situation. Since cannabis is an organic compound (I only consume flower, not oil or edibles) I find it easy to "verify" that I am getting a legitimate product.
I don't mean to brag, but I have a situation where I mostly get it for free. It is all love, and to have people share the love makes it all the more special.
Another way to think of it like a CSA - would you want organic produce directly from the farm, or from Whole Foods?
I hope this helps, at the very least, humanizes the other side a little bit.
This comment feels like art. Either it’s a troll that’s not that good, or it’s a genuine comment so far off in lala land that it’s a privilege to read.
Nothing about that comment seems THAT unusual. Honestly, I'm spending more time sitting here trying to understand where you're coming from than I am with them. What elements of their comment struck you as trolling?
The bits about "you dont understand unless you connect with the culture" and "its all love" read to me like stereotypes straight from the 60's.
That kind of thing is an extreme minority in most places- weed culture is no less mercantile than any other. The la la stuff exists, to be sure, but so does my neighbor offering to share veggies from their garden. Either way, I don't think it's got much bearing on the illegal drug trade, or the crippled legal trade as the volume is just two completely different scales.
> The la la stuff exists, to be sure, but so does my neighbour offering to share veggies from their garden.
In my experience there's quite a bit of overlap between the kind of people who like to smoke weed and the kind of people who like to grow their own vegetables and sell them from their garden. Perhaps less so in cities. I think this is one of those stereotypes that has quite a bit of truth to it.
There certainly is, but they aren't doing volume. Farmers and grocery stores (to stick with the analogy) are doing the volume work here, so as matters of policy, it just doesn't add much.
It is a very foreign concept to many people, I understand where they are coming from.
For example, my mom loves Whole Foods and would not prefer a CSA. There is comfort in the standard quality that McDonalds has to offer. Marketing labels and branding have become commonplace and widely celebrated amongst consumers.
To ask for these luxuries to be stripped away is preposterous to most people. “Your weed isn’t lab tested - but you could be killed!”
I tried micro-dosing for a short time in my past, but gave it up for reasons not important here.
My only parent, my mother, gave me only one rule that I had to live by. I had to abide by the law, no matter what it was or if I disagreed with it. She simply just did not want me to spend my life in jail and assured me that I would feel the same way by telling me how terrible jail is (which I did).
I say this because I sympathize with your standpoint. I could have written your comment in a past life.
In short, I would ask that you empathize with the concept that one's belief might exist outside the law.
A little more to say... the variables at play here have a wide range of interpretation on a personal level. I infer from your comment that you perceive the risk to be high. I perceived my risk associated with microdosing, including the risk of being shipped to prison, to be low.
Before microdosing, I had undergone a macrodose. That macrodosing session was a positive for me. As such, the reward and exploration of a microdose was enticing enough for me to try it.
I thought you were going to take your pitch in a different direction.
I have found myself a part of a community organizations which practically live in the stone age. There are a lot of people and groups who are GREAT at organizing, but there aren't any technologies (besides phoning, text, and email) that one can use to enhance their ability to organize.
My best advice would be to unplug from the engineering community - see what real people are living through. Use technology to enhance arms length organization. I feel like you are doing what MeetUp is doing - creating a platform for human connections. I apologize in advance, I'm certain that I don't have the full picture.
People are tired of platforms. Give them a tool and let them use it how they see fit. Consider the blog post author. Think of a tool that allows them to better organize and communicate with their community of hobbiest painters. Tool to engage with other humans, not platform to spread your seed.
I am not a financial advisor and this is not financial advice.
I understand your response. There is one assumption that I think marks the difference between what side of the line one falls on.
My understanding of your belief is that you think Melvin would not lie due to there being a large risk associated with lying.
One might also assume that Melvin would not be dumb enough to short over 100% of GME stock.
In exercise, I believe this to be the crux of the speculative argument that Melvin is dumb enough to use psychological warfare (which may have legal ramifications if they get caught) to try to get GME stock back down.
> I am not a financial advisor and this is not financial advice.
Okay as soon as I read this I knew I shouldn't be expecting much, but...
> My understanding of your belief is that you think Melvin would not lie due to there being a large risk associated with lying.
This really isn't just lying a little bit, and isn't just a large risk. If you're running a fund like this, purposely making materially false statements like this would be akin to jumping out of a plane without a parachute and somehow hoping for the best, while 5M angry redditors are purposely trying to make sure you crash into the hardest thing possible. This position of "well maybe he's lying, you can't definitively prove he's not!" position is so bonkers that it's closer to a conspiracy theory than an actual opinion.
> One might also assume that Melvin would not be dumb enough to short over 100% of GME stock.
This has been discussed in depth elsewhere. You're understanding of this concept is fundamentally flawed. Frankly, even if it wasn't, you're suggesting that a single firm shorted more than 100%? Or that both Melvin Capital and Citron both shorted more than 100%, and that somehow added up (with your misunderstanding) to 140%?
> Okay as soon as I read this I knew I shouldn't be expecting much, but...
There is no need for you to get feisty over an comment that I (who seems like someone you disagree with) posted on the internet. Perhaps this is a point where you can self-reflect on how you articulate yourself.
Please understand that I don't care anymore. I don't care if you think I'm out of line. Yes, I read and understand your comment. I just don't engage with people that have bad communication skills.
I am only writing this in an attempt to make you a better person.
The argument being made is that the original funds never exited their original ~$10 shorts. So every $100 increase in stock price is a 10x increase in losses.
If someone re-entered at ~$300, a $100 increase would be a 30% increase in loses.
The scale of these is massively different.
I have absolutely no doubt that other firms have entered short positions.
Claiming that "Melvin may have re-entered afterwards" is obviously a possibility, but is not the same as having lied about exiting in the first place.
I get that legally it's different, but when ordinary people (like me) read "Melvin exited these position", they take it to mean "Melvin accepted the loss and gave up", which is in turn seen as implying "they no longer hold said positions". If Melvin bought and re-shorted all their shares at a similar price, then to many, many people, that's a legal distinction without a material difference. It's not "lying" technically, but it's pedantically misleading enough to be pretty darn close to lying for those of us asking the question. So when people question the veracity of the first statement, they're really wondering about the others too.
Basically, my point is: if your rebuttal to the question of "did they lie?" is "no, that's preposterous, it would be a death sentence for the firm", then your answer might be correct technically as to the literal meaning of the question, but you've missed the spirit of what was being asked.
There is also no evidence they singlehandedly shorted over 100% of GME stock. All of these claims and rumors unravel when you demand evidence. They might make sense if you assume their circular dependencies, but it's a house of cards.
Congrats on the launch! My understanding of the space is that there is a great desire for "super powered" messaging - especially over text. Any chance "send later" is a part of your roadmap? Or possible to implement using your API?
Remember back when Apple was running ads for Chance the Rapper's debut album (Apple Music exclusive) "Coloring Book?" Apple was also pushing a lot into Siri. I can't recall the specifics, but I thought the ad had Chance saying "hey siri play coloring book."
So, I asked Siri the above prompt. Siri took me to Apple Music and played an album with the name "Coloring Book" but by a different artist.
Although Zildjian is undeniably iconic, the same could be said about Bosphorus Cymbals and a few other companies I won't name.