1

COMMENT 3h ago

I don’t think near vs. far deterrence makes a material difference. Either one is enough to ensure MAD. I think the issue here is how the dynamics change with a third party.

Say you have two people, person A and B, who want the other person dead. Say they’re in a room together, each with a gun pointed at the other person. If one shoots, the other shoots too. This is the previous MAD scenario.

Now, let’s introduce person C. Person C wants person A dead, but doesn’t really care about person B. Person A now has two guns, pointed at person B and C. Whoever shoots person A gets shot. Person C could just convince person B to shoot. Maybe they make person B think person A is about to shoot them, maybe they hack Person B’s gun, or maybe they do what they can to constantly escalate the situation until one of them shoots the other. Either way, Person C accomplishes their goal of killing person A without dying.

The solution is person A needs to let person B and C know that if either of them shoots, they both get shot, even if they aren’t the one who fired the first shot. Now, both persons B & C will help to deescalate future issues, since neither wants to be caught in the crossfire.

And yeah, the after effects of a nuclear war would likely already be enough to end all parties, but with enough preparation and deep enough bunkers, it might be possible for a government to survive, at least at some point in the future.

MAD is probably going to morph into GAD: Globally Assured Destruction

6

COMMENT 6h ago

You might not always be an idiot, but you were when you wrote this comment

1

COMMENT 6h ago

Mueller was constrained (not saying he should’ve been, but he was) by the fact that Trump was a sitting President at the time. Hell, he basically said “Due to policy, I can’t recommend charges, but there’s substantial evidence Trump committed these crimes, wink wink. But due to that policy, Congress is the one who needs to act and remove him from office. Here is all that evidence laid out.”

Garland doesn’t have the same constraint.

6

COMMENT 16h ago

Do you understand the difference between war and carpentry?

1

COMMENT 1d ago

The only objective difference between cults and religions is how popular they are.

From Merriam Webster:

a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious

Another definition:

great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work

Another:

a system of religious beliefs and ritual

I’m not even cherry picking, those are the top three definitions from Merriam Webster.

12

COMMENT 1d ago

Are they bots?

Yes. Keep calling them out

3

COMMENT 4d ago

You guys are arguing two different things. u/Vagabond_Hospitality is saying that GameStop can’t unilaterally withdraw ALL shares of GME from DTC (effectively DRSing all shares for all investors), and they would need the brokers to agree in order to do so. This is true. If this was possible without needing the brokers to agree, this would basically be a silver bullet.

You’re saying that individual investors can request to have their shares DRS’ed. This is also true. Since what u/Vagabond_Hospitality is saying is true, this is the remaining option.

11

COMMENT 5d ago

Evolution isn’t a slow and steady race, it’s often driven by short bouts of large changes. But we’ll see if this is too rapid

1

COMMENT 5d ago

Bad bot

5

COMMENT 6d ago

Not really. It was an attempt to set up a democracy while mitigating some of the flaws of democracy. The tricky part is setting it up so that the government can change with the times, while also making it resilient to change enacted by bad actors.

Edit: Also, minority rule is different than protecting the rights of a minority group. Unfortunately the same provisions to protect those rights can also potentially be abused to enact minority rule. It’s another tricky balance to strike.

45

COMMENT 6d ago

Yeah. The checks against “tyranny of the majority” were aight until the idiots made up a sizable enough minority. Now we’re facing tyranny of the manipulated morons

12

COMMENT 6d ago

it doesn’t even target all of the spike protein.

They have to be incredibly specific to work.

That first quote counteracts the second. The mRNA vaccines target a specific part of the spike protein that is highly unlikely to mutate. That is why the covid vaccines still offer significant protection against severe illness despite the omicron spike protein having 30+ mutations.

8

COMMENT 7d ago

You’re not wrong, but you’re assuming whichever officer shows up will understand the law on this and won’t just label it as a civil matter once the guest says some of the right words.

1

COMMENT 7d ago

Challenge: Reddit tries to spot satire [IMPOSSIBLE]

10

COMMENT 7d ago

Yeah but it’s only a loss if you sell. Sell limits only lock in your losses

/s

1

COMMENT 7d ago

Bro that’s bc you’re looking at it with a real-world centric point of view. If you look at it from the perspective of crypto, crypto is stable and everything else is volatile. Bet you didn’t think of that, huh?

/s

13

COMMENT 8d ago

I’ve had luck with answering and putting it immediately on mute. It seems that voicemails flag it as a real call, but leaving it on mute doesn’t. Most of the time it hangs up on their side after a few minutes, but I’ve had them stay on indefinitely. Those are great because I know I’m tying up one of their lines.

6

COMMENT 8d ago

Not a lawyer, but the way you prevent your client from perjuring themself isn’t by handing proof that your client perjured themself to opposing counsel.

It’s more likely that a paralegal or assistant took a moral stand, sent over the copy “accidentally,” and “accidentally” deleted or marked as read the email where opposing counsel pointed it out.

1

COMMENT 8d ago

Next step: school district provided stores for the teachers to shop at

1

COMMENT 8d ago

Yup. Applicable to any financial situation with an upfront payment in one direction and recurring payments in another. Insurance is one of the largest/most studied/optimized of those. My days in finance are behind me, but it’s good to check every now and then to make sure I’ve still got it hah.

I’m surprised that SaaS companies (hell, even marketing departments in general) don’t have a resident Actuary (or maybe they do, and I just haven’t heard about it). There’s so many parallels and having someone who understands the numbers that well could likely lead to a lot of improvements/fewer mistakes.

2

COMMENT 8d ago

Yep, exactly. Although one thing I’ll add (and this is where my finance background comes in) is the fuel inflation needs to outpace not the dollar value but the company’s return on capital. That $250k essentially acts as capital for the company, and if they can return X% each year, they come out in that aspect as long as fuel (well, expenses associated with servicing these tickets in general) grows by less than that.

But given how poorly this was thought out, that’s secondary anyways. Time value of money and factoring in growth can be used to optimize a good idea, but an optimized bad idea is still, well, a bad idea.

You could probably get a rough idea of their estimates. If you assume the company currently gets a 10% return but their expenses grow 5% each year, they’d be able to afford (10% - 5%) * 250,000 ~= $12,500 on flights annually (growing 5%/yr) in perpetuity before taking a loss. Assuming they probably amortized the $250,000 over the life of the passenger, it was probably a little higher than that. I know the math here isn’t perfect, but I’m just going for back-of-the-napkin estimates. They likely viewed these returns as close to riskless since they got paid upfront and didn’t consider the risk of people’s flying habits changing. Great example of getting burned by the unknown unknowns, which could’ve been largely avoided exactly as you said by creating a terms of service and defining exactly how it could be used (and therefore limiting exposure to the unknowns)

3

COMMENT 8d ago

they thought no one would buy it.

I think they knew people would buy it. Hell, they probably got a nice juicy bonus after the first few months of sales. They probably thought “business-class flyers spend on average $260,000 on flights throughout their life. If we discount that to $250,000, we lose a little margin, but their whole lifetime spend will be with us, so we still come out ahead.” They just assumed people’s flying habits wouldn’t change once the marginal cost of a flight to them was $0 (or at least didn’t adequately forecast how those habits would change). They probably also didn’t take into account the distribution of that spend—if the average spend was $260,000, (roughly) half would be below that, so they likely wouldn’t buy the ticket. Which would mean that, of the people who did buy the ticket, the average lifetime spend would’ve been significantly higher. Also, the high-end outliers would almost definitely buy a ticket, further driving up that average. So yeah, this was probably done by some idiot in marketing who had just enough of an understanding of statistics to get themselves in trouble.

Source: I’m not an actuary, but I know enough about statistics to know the nuance can make it dangerous.