jollybean

8 ms·

1.
by jollybean 4y ago
"The normal claim is that police are killing black individuals unnecessarily. The claim you have offered is just that claim dressed in dramatic clothing." This is plainly false. Claims that police arbitrarily kill people, or are &
2.
by jollybean 4y ago
I don't think you grasp the implications of what you are suggesting. Basically, you're suggesting that 'being wrong' about something, is effectively a crime. That's one hell of a slippery slope. Alex Jones has an au
3.
by jollybean 4y ago
So if someone says 'transgenders are sacrificing children' should be illegal, does that mean 'police are arbitrarily killing unarmed blacks' - should that be illegal? Because I think the material reality could be demonst
4.
by jollybean 4y ago
'Who deems what a lie is'? Are you saying we can't agree on what reality is? If you provide bullshit medical advice to people you should go to jail frankly, for example. But misinformation, when it's applied broadly, doe
5.
by jollybean 4y ago
Yeah, no this is authoritarianism in action. People are not burning down Children's hospitals, moreover, the kinds of 'misinformation' you're alluding to generally fall way, way within the boundaries of 'hate speech
6.
by jollybean 4y ago
Virtue Signalling is absolutely a thing. Hollow and performative support for an issues that services only to engender the supporter with social points. Supporting Ukraine doesn't bring anyone brownie points because it's not so muc
7.
by jollybean 4y ago
That is definitely not what this article is.
8.
by jollybean 4y ago
Just the opposite, I see empathetic, gushing, ridiculous cotton candy optimisim all over places like LinkedIn and the corporate world. Everybody Smile! There isn't nearly enough contention, questioning, satire (notice how SNL never rea
9.
by jollybean 4y ago
Rather bluntly, this is just not true. I think there is an erroneous understanding/implication in your statement, which is likely leading you to erroneous conclusion. The Fed is not 'Central Planning' so much as it is actuall
10.
by jollybean 4y ago
Listen, you are really confusing yourself and others here. That banks used to print notes in the past is not relevant in this discussion, when we talk about 'printing money' what we are referring to is how money comes into circula
11.
by jollybean 4y ago
This is misleading. There is a 'decision' made and there is always collateral - at the bank, and even at the Fed. The 'decision' that might be made, is what kind of assets to accept on the Feds balance sheet. At a privat
12.
by jollybean 4y ago
This is kind of a misunderstanding. Banks retain assets for loans they make. They don't print money. But imagine this scenario: you deposit $10 at bank A, they loan that $10 to person B, that person B puts their $10 account at Bank C,
13.
by jollybean 4y ago
I think you are misunderstanding fractional lending and collateral. Fractional lending seems a bit odd, but it's not like there is 'no collateral' - rather, there ends up being 'partial collateral'. As it turns out,
14.
by jollybean 4y ago
Because we just went through a massive existential shock with COVID, in which the Fed took on a staggering amount of assets i.e. liquidity - and - we've had material global problems which cause major increase in the cost of goods and f
15.
by jollybean 4y ago
I'm wary that this is a problematic articulation. The government rarely if ever controls markets to the point where it causes material price increase for things. The US government has not taken measures to materially affect the cost of
16.
by jollybean 4y ago
Because the 'simple straight forward explanation' doesn't make much sense. As economies grow and expand, they need more money supply to keep prices stable. If you're using 100 tons of Gold as your 'fixed money suppl
17.
by jollybean 4y ago
No - this is completely false. As an economy expands, it needs more currency to facilitate growth. A 'very hard currency' would strangle an economy with ugly deflationary issues. Moreover - with a 'hard currency' the sys
18.
by jollybean 4y ago
"Why is that necessary?" Why is any product feature necessary or not? If you want to buy something with a USB-C then buy that. If you want Apple to change then let them know. "Get the government to make a company make a choic
19.
by jollybean 4y ago
"The government will force companies to make a product decision that I happen to like" This is an extremely bad reason to support this legislation. The government could legislate any number of product changes, they don't do t
20.
by jollybean 4y ago
The iphone uses the 'thinnest' connector of all, which I find nice. All phones use 'thinner' and better chargers than they did 10 years ago. It's unbelievable how people are default supporting this completely unnece
21.
by jollybean 4y ago
? how did self regulation fail ? There's nothing wrong with the way iPhone charges. This is an unnecessary intervention. There are plenty of bigger, more relevant fish to fry.
22.
by jollybean 4y ago
More like 1.5,
23.
by jollybean 4y ago
Depends on competency, commitment etc.. Post-war countries tend to be best served by a truly benevolent, uncorruptable, honest broker who can carry out the necessary plans, which should be fairly obvious if there is decent planning. China w
24.
by jollybean 4y ago
There are services where you can get temp. cc numbers what 'wrap' your 'real' card. You can limit them to certain merchants and limit amounts, cancel them etc..
25.
by jollybean 4y ago
Bitcoin is not an 'industry' so it's not comparable on those terms, moreover, it provides nothing of value to anyone.
26.
by jollybean 4y ago
??? history does not care what is boring and what is 'backed by VCs'. The most applicable things, those that people find useful and gain market share, will be used. How long they are used depends on other things. Hopefully, Bitcoi
27.
by jollybean 4y ago
A lot of arbitrary complexity in our stacks and it can be totally overwhelming for young people just moving through the drudgery. Look at an Android project: there are maybe 12 different kinds of files! For a 'Hello World'. You ha
28.
by jollybean 4y ago
Bingo. Every nation should implement an 'externalization tax'. So USA would implement X% tax on China for their authoritarian stuff, Y% for their aggression against Taiwan and Z% for their carbon emissions. Every nation gets a tar
29.
by jollybean 4y ago
So this is a neat idea, but impossible and it demonstrates the very powerful reach of China. Major American corporations have deep ties with China and China would pressure them to tamp this down. Without some kind of institutional support f
30.
by jollybean 4y ago
There is no evidence in that article. The intercepts notions of 'this was possibly a false flag' is literally the definition of conspiracy theory. While there certainly might be more going on than we know, there isn't evidenc

More ›