laughing_man

Heh. Steam thinks I'm 126.

I agree. We should have dealt with this in 2009, but we didn't. There are still individual banks that are too big.

Everyone else is literally everyone else. It doesn't matter what you have or what you do for a living, the collapse of the financial system is going to affect you negatively.

Yes, but that can be a good thing, from your perspective, if you owe a lot of money.

It's even worse than that. If you make withdrawals with the intent of evading currency reporting requirements you've committed a crime even if the withdrawals don't constitute structuring.

Also, in regard to the fictional CSAM depictions that stuff is still wending its way through the courts.

Iceland's banks were full of money from people in the UK. It's a lot easier to default when there only a small political and economic price.

Here's the thing about debt, though: If your debt is denominated in your own sovereign currency, you can just print more when you run out of money.

If they bail them out it should be done like the GM bailout. Shareholders leave with nothing.

I don't know. The guy I bought my house from owed the bank $400k. He didn't make any payments for two years, and then they paid him $20k to go away.

How are they going to use my tax money if I stop working and don't pay taxes?

The problem is if large banks fail they take everyone else with them. We should have dealt with this in 2009, but for some reason it didn't happen.

But money talks, I guess.

ICE is doing no such thing. They're trying to do their job. Law enforcement, you know, what the state is supposed to be doing?

There's no Star-spangled Gestapo. That's just fever dreams on your part. And the reason we're here is because the Democrats facilitated and even encouraged mass illegal immigration.

And there are a lot of hapless pawns of large corporations rioting against ICE. Probably the same people who wonder why pay hasn't kept up with inflation.

xargs supports null termination.

While it's true not every command supports multiple targets, presumably you know if you're using one of those commands.

That won't save you from weird file names, but null termination will.

Depending on the actual command, this can be far slower and less efficient than xargs. You're creating a separate process for each invocation of bar when a lot of commands will take many targets for a single invocation.

Try this with find and grep vs xargs. There's a big difference.

So you want the government to fail at the things you want it to fail at, yet you're trying to project that onto conservatives?

Good lord. You actually think the president and SCOTUS are more corrupt than Congress? Amazing.

That phrase isn't meant to be taken literally. It's an old way to say Congress is very corrupt.

And no, conservative "actors" do not want the government to fail. Which party was it, again, who wants ICE to stop doing its job?

Trump is the result in that breakdown of trust, not the cause. We have the best Congress money can buy, and the bureaucracy spends its time, and our money, playing kingmaker. Why would anyone trust public institutions?

That's not the same thing as saying there was no market for F9. SpaceX wanted to have a larger market. They were already making money. A lot of money. They could slightly undercut the price legacy providers were offering with a much larger profit margin.

I asked two questions which were both locked as dupes. The referenced questions mine were supposed to have duplicated were not, in fact the same question. After that I didn't bother. If I could find my answer with a search engine, fine, but I wasn't going to waste time trying to engage on the site.

They've said as much.

This is why I would never make it in business. I just don't see the consumer case for buying a Steam Machine. They're too expensive for the console niche they're intended to occupy.

That's the fig leaf, sure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with these companies looking like big, fat loot pinatas to bureaucrats in Brussels. And London.

The army "learned" no such thing. There was never a safety problem with guns on military bases. Guns were banned by Bill Clinton as part of a broader gun control push by the Democrats.

The effect has been the opposite of increased safety. We've had a couple of unopposed mass murder incidents on US military bases since the ban went into effect, most notably by Nidal Hasan, who was able to kill 13 and wound 33 because nobody else had a weapon.

For a few years after states raised the drinking age to 21, you could still drink at 18 on a military base. Even today base commanders still have the ability to lower the age to 18 if there's a nearby international border over which personnel can drink at that age.

Yes, US alcohol laws are stupid. Modern temperance activists were able to greatly restrict legal access to booze using anti-drunk driving "for the children" rhetoric.

Isn't that the real reason the EU keeps suing/fining FAANG companies?

I wonder if the complaint is Korean firms are recognizing profits in Korea by overpricing products sold to subsidiaries in the US.

In theory that's illegal, though I've never seen a company get busted for it.

When you open a short position you borrow shares from your broker's other customers. Your broker then sells those shares on the exchange. When you close your short position, your broker buys shares in that same stock from the exchange at the current price. So the people losing money are the people who bought when the market was high and sold when it was low, as always.

There are two big issues with shorting a stock. One, your downside is infinite, whereas your upside is only the size of your position. If you short a medical stock worth ten cents and it zooms up to $1000 because the company discovers a cure for cancer, that's going to cost you $999.90 for every share you shorted at ten cents. If the company goes bankrupt instead, you make... ten cents for every share. If you get unlucky a single short position will wipe out all the money you made or will make shorting stocks for the next three generations.

The second problem is you don't completely control your position. If you buy a stock to hold, it's yours until you decide to sell. But when you short a stock and enough the people at your brokerage holding shares in a company you shorted decide to sell, your broker will summarily close your position at the current market price because there aren't enough remaining shares for you to keep borrowing. That can be very frustrating if the stock is at a temporary peak, especially if it proceeds to go down to a price for which you would have closed at a profit.

EDIT: I suppose I should add a third problem to the list. If the cost of your short goes beyond a certain percentage of your account your broker will close your position to protect himself and his other customers. That usually happens if the stock is going up quickly. When your broker closes your position, he, along with all the other brokers closing short positions, needs to buy stock, which creates a positive feedback loop. That's called a "short squeeze". You can end up with prices shooting up to ridiculous levels because people have no choice but to buy.

Australia is its own continent, at least as we reckon them in the US. So, no, that's not Asia.

I suppose Israel is technically part of Asia, but of course we always refer to that area as the Middle East.

But India... that's either South Asia or just Asia.

India is literally part of Asia. How else would you describe it?