HN user

funemployed

36 karma
Posts1
Comments20
View on HN

The books were incredibly influential on me as a teenager, twenty years later on re-reading the cantos I found some of the specific language around intergenerational romance to be troubling and the focus on it to be a major distraction from the rest of the excellent story.

Praying for his friends and family. RIP

Totally agree, and I also generally find the article poorly written. I would reduce it to the following statements: 1. HBO is not showing the entire Tom and Jerry collection, which is bad because even though some episodes contain offensive stereotypes the show is culturally significant and unavailable elsewhere. 2. HBO streaming has bad UX.

Most of the article seems devoted to 1 and focused on the 'cancel culture' reasons why HBO might not be showing the full catalog while also admitting that there is also a large amount of the catalog not on HBO that is not plausibly part of the several episodes that would be targeted for being cancelled. Seems like the premise of the article kind of falls apart at that point, a little self-refuting.

Having the Jetsons and Flintstones on streaming has been a blast for me as well.

The daily amount borrowed, by itself, understates the significance.

If someone tells me that the NY Fed is looking to significantly (>25%) increase its overnight and short-term liquidity operations and the necessary increases are in the range of tens of billions of dollars then that already sounds pretty important. I don't see how anything you said is an argument that cumulative liquidity is an appropriate measure here. Instead we both seem to agree that if someone had said - the loans are only $150 billion (because that seems to be the one day aggregate limit) then that person would also be misleading.

My point is not that this isn't an important issue but rather that it is an important issue and as such it deserves serious coverage and the linked article is not it.

If I lend my friend $10 every day for lunch and he pays me back the next day and this happens 5 days in a row in what context would it make sense to say I have lent him $50 dollars? The linked discussion about cumulative liquidity seems completely full of FUD and designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate its readers. Less of this and more links to Matt Levine please.

Came here to say this. Regardless of the specific facts of this case, the purpose of private insurance is to compensate individuals who suffer low-probability events like this through no fault of their own by spreading risk over a large population. If the police/government are responding to a legitimate public safety emergency I don't want them picking and choosing which property to damage based on their potential liability.