ruilov

6 ms·

1.
by ruilov 1mo ago
Suppose I gave you a series of 1000 coin flips. I tell you they were generated by a fair coin. You’re suspicious, you think I hid a watermark in them. But you look at the sequence and 485 are heads, close enough to 50%. You look at the corr
2.
by ruilov 3mo ago
the smartest people see AI as an incredible tool that enhances their productivity.
3.
by ruilov 5mo ago
I'd like to see the base rate. Ie were there similar bets at similar times when Trump did not make an announcement
4.
by ruilov 2y ago
Look up Jeff Yass. Mega donor to Trump and large shareholder in ByteDance.
5.
by ruilov 2y ago
Only before Jan 19th and if a sale was in progress. After Jan 19th the law went into effect, and whatever Trump said or wrote in executive order became legally irrelevant
6.
by ruilov 2y ago
from the opinion: "[Tiktok] further argue that the Act is underinclusive as to the Government’s data protection concern, raising doubts as to whether the Government is actually pursuing that interest" ie what you're saying...
7.
by ruilov 2y ago
it may be toothless but will they have an effect? You're Apple or Google's lawyer - the CEO asks, should I take Tiktok down from the app store. What do you say? Otoh there's a law and civil penalty. On the other, Trump says h
8.
by ruilov 2y ago
part D. "The record before us adequately supports the conclusion that Congress would have passed the challenged provisions based on the data collection justification alone"
9.
by ruilov 2y ago
agreed
10.
by ruilov 2y ago
they talk more about the motivations of the law in part D. The "exclusion" referred to in this quote is not the exclusion of tiktok. The court is responding to one of the arguments that tiktok made. Certain types of websites are e
11.
by ruilov 2y ago
I'd use the term 'originalism' rather 'textualism', but you have a point. For 1st amendment cases, the court hasn't (yet) tried to use their new fangled originalist methodologies. In fact justice Gorsuch wrote
12.
by ruilov 2y ago
they found some of the arguments compelling and acknowledged that the law may burden free speech. But they also found that the law is not about speech, it's about corporate ownership. In these cases the court will often (not always) de
13.
by ruilov 2y ago
The replies here seem slightly off base. The Court acknowledges that 1s amm. free speech issues are at play. A law can regulate non-expressive activity (corporate ownership) while still burdening expressive activity, which is the case here.
14.
by ruilov 10y ago
RBN energy has really detailed analysis: https://rbnenergy.com/ . It assumes some level of familiarity, so it's not for everyone.
15.
by ruilov 10y ago
Normally people use the term "demand" to mean a curve, which is a function of price. In an efficient market (a good approximation for the oil market), the price solves for the equilibrium between supply and demand. The quote in th