piqi

Me: "I haven't been advocating for purchasing the stock. I don't own it."

You: "It’s a good idea not to own a stock if you can’t read the income statement."

I figured it out! It's your reading comprehension! I was wondering why I had to repeat myself so much in this thread, and why you had been trailing off on tangents away from each point you attempted to pivot around. While ignoring each of your previous statements.

I hope you can sort that out. Wish you the best.

Thanks for clarifying.

Their previous statement was not clear:

The loss is nearly as large as their entire revenue

Their initial claim is "Coinbase is piling up losses, it will eventually be bankrupt, and executives will have accumulated billions while customers will lose billions." And saying this is "stealing" from customers.

I haven't been advocating for purchasing the stock. I don't own it.

Regardless, looks like they had positive net income in 2020 & 2021. Coinbase isn't the only business dealing with losses 2022. I still very much disagree with "piling up losses... eventually be bankrupt"

They get their already-paid dividends or proceeds of what they already sold.

More irrelevant commentary.... COIN doesn't have dividends, and.... yes.... when you sell the stock.... you are no longer a shareholder.... this needed to be said?

None of them have lost a cent.

Again.... look up the current events. Just today the Treasury secretary said that additional bank failures won't get the special treatment the big depositors got at the failed banks. They should NOT have been insured above 250k.

In your words, you might say the bank STOLE the money from depositors, and the government reimbursed special depositors for their loses. It was NOT stolen, though. The bank was mismanaged. The government should not have covered the loses above 250k per depositor. The big depositors took a risk keeping that much money there.

I doubt common shareholders would get anything at all in a case of bankruptcy.

the unsecured creditors think they're first in line (bank depositors)

Coinbase isn't a bank, and customers' digital assets aren't bank deposits.

that sounds like stealing to me!

Welp... You're wrong!

As for real banks, feel free to look up current events on "uninsured deposits" at regional banks. You might say banks are "stealing" deposits from accounts >$250k too!

You've moved the goal posts from "stealing" funds to highlighting that a business has revenue and costs during a quarter.

...a loss of $557M on revenue of $605M.

It’s like selling $5 pancakes that each cost you $10 to make.

$605m - $557m = $48m (7.9% gain)

$5 - $10 = -$5 (100% loss)

Yup... Exactly the same. More false and irrelevant info. At least you're consistent! Keep the FUD flowing!

> “If any exchange is safe, it's Coinbase”

Ok, so other exchanges are worse.

Oof... You are really reaching...

> “Somehow you extrapolate this to ‘all exchanges’”

You just told me the other exchanges are worse.

pardon me....? Other non-public companies have executives selling stock?

At the rate Coinbase is piling up losses

Feel free to cite your source.

Oh, so you agree with me that nobody should use crypto exchanges in the first place. Because they will lose your money.

No, I don't. You buy it on an exchange, and then move it on-chain. Done. That's the point of a centralized exchange with banking connections. You are welcome to leave it there if you'd like, but you have to accept the risks. Go ahead, try to move the goal posts again.

Every comment you make more irrelevant and false points.

When Coinbase files for bankruptcy, crypto deposits will be at the back of the line. They are unsecured creditors.

I'm aware. This has nothing to do with your point about "stealing" deposits like other exchanges (e.g. FTX), and is irrelevant to stock-based compensation. It contributes nothing to the discussion. More noise to encourage others to feel safe that their bias is well liked.

Coinbase executives will have enjoyed years of massive pay days selling stock

More irrelevant and false points. The company has only been public since April 2021. Not even two years. You are attempting to frame them as fat cat wall street types purposefully driving the company into the ground at customers' expense.

Somehow you extrapolate this to "all exchanges" when Coinbase is the only publicly-traded exchange.

remember that Coinbase was audited by the SEC before going public, and is one of the oldest exchanges. If any exchange is safe, it's Coinbase. The problem is the SEC doesn't give clear direction.

Anybody that feels the SEC will "protect" them by forcing coinbase into bankruptcy is welcome to move their assets on-chain. Many people advocate for that.

Again, I'm highlighting how lazy and absurd your argument is.

The Wells notice has nothing to do with their banking connections.

Edit: the parent comment previously made the claim that this was predicted by various unrelated claims in a linked blog post, and later modified it to make it appear they were not making that association.

The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds.

like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money

I really wish people put more effort into arguing their side in these discussions. Your point is absurd and lazy.

[public company] pays some % of employee salary in stock >> while "losing money" >> ??? >> customer's property is stolen.

Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures

FTX's problems were amplified by being unregulated, outside the US. The overwhelming majority were not US residents. The SEC didn't have jurisdiction over their International firm. The US version of FTX was handled very differently, but supposedly co-mingled funds. They FAILED to protect US residents by not shutting down the US version. They could have gave warnings about the international firm, instead of working so closely with FTX's founder.

As usual, lots of hand-waving from crypto detractors. You have a clear bias. Sadly, when enough people share a bias, truth and facts are irrelevant. There's a lot to criticize about in crypto. No need to make up irrelevant associations.

It's in part the upvote / downvote, an horrible gamification of online discourse

HN isn't any different. Possibly worse, since only accounts with a certain level of internet points are permitted to judge others.

Evals is a framework for evaluating OpenAI models and an open-source registry of benchmarks.

Is the purpose to know which of the models OpenAI offers is most suitable for your workload/app? Could I use this to know if the cheaper model is sufficient for a particular use-case?

...find a viable business model which does not rely on selling my attention to highest bidder.

They'll do both.

Whether or not they make the mistake isn't the point. If they were encouraged by a specific entity to treat it as an investment, then the blame should be placed on that entity. Regulations should be put in place to prevent that (I suspect they already are). Otherwise, they have to take the L.

I expect banks and home builders are careful with how they communicate with customers.

It's less about placing fault on the purchaser. It's more that there is no one else to blame. Never-ending bail-outs only hurt future generations. I wish I went into deep debt to buy a house a lot sooner. I didn't because I knew I couldn't afford it.

...their house is the single biggest investment

Is it really anyone's fault but their own? I don't recall housing being offered as a low/no-risk investment with guaranteed profits. Financial blogs, podcasts, and Reddit commenters might have shared that view.

Are there any examples of mortgage issuers or home builders advertising housing as an investment?

She was fired not long after that all-nighter.

What's your point?

What is your point?

I could ask the same of your original comment. Seems you like hand-waving at grants, and letting the reader come to a conclusion as a way of suggesting there's something nefarious happening. You don't like it when it's used elsewhere.

Typical divisive comment to stir the pot. It could even suggest you are being paid by an enemy of the US to disrupt or discourage/encourage discussion on particular topics. Of course, I'll use your tactic, and not provide any further information on this. I'll leave it up to the reader to wonder.

blatant USG propaganda

All in the eye of the beholder. Which was your goal of your ambiguous hand-waving.

Roads and bridges were funded by the US government. Really makes you think, huh?!

The Tor Project is primarily funded by the State Department and DARPA. Make of that as you will.

PBS is funded by the US government. Make of that as you will.

Like I said.... the linked article literally says nothing about "fasting." Feel free to quote the part that mentions it. It only discusses "meal skipping." No mention of snacking.

...snacks under 50 calories allowed during the rest of the time.

This is not fasting. Even just 20 calories is generally expected to stop the fast. 50 calories would definitely stop the fast.

literally nothing in the article mentions anything about fasting, intermittent or otherwise.

This post should be flagged/removed.

What about device OS or browser data? User-agent should be enough for a meaningful breakdown.

People mainly use the twitter app. HN is just a website. I'd expect more desktop users from HN.

EDIT: oh I see. It's in the github repo and vercel app.

name visitors

Mobile 778,678

Desktop 101,216

Laptop 47,781

Tablet 16,967

Your site works great when permitting only first-party images/css/html. I use Firefox's tracking protection + ublock origin + umatrix. I don't allow first-party JS by default, or any third-party stuff. I spoof the referer. I see JS from plausible.io tries to load.

I wonder how that skewed the requests. Do you have data on that? I'm sure there are some % of HN visitors that do the same. Less likely the case for Elon Musk followers. I don't know how you would get 'time on page' data without JS.

People are intrigued by how easily it understands/communicates like a real human. I don't think it's asking for too much to expect it to do so without the aggression. We wouldn't tolerate it from traditional system error messages and notifications.

And only after you probe it to do so?

This didn't seem to be the case with any of the screenshots I've seen. Still, I wouldn't want an employee to talk back to a rude customer.

I cannot understand the outrage about these types of replies.

I'm not particularly outraged. I took the fast.ai courses a couple times since 2017. I'm familiar with what's happening. It's interesting and impressive, but I can see the gears turning. I recognize the limitations.

Microsoft presents it as a chat assistant. It shouldn't attempt to communicate as a human if it doesn't want to be judged that way.

"I don’t think you are worth my time and energy."

If a colleague at work spoke to me like this frequently, I would strongly consider leaving. If staff at a business spoke like this, I would never use that business again.

Hard to imagine how this type of language wasn't noticed before release.

sounds like a very normal day for lots of people

That's the issue with your statement. I didn't survey "lots of people" and neither did you. I can't find any data to back it up, but I do see a plenty of surveys about breakfast consumption.

I find it very hard to believe people are restricting their calories within 8 hours everyday, naturally just based on the conversations I've had with people. Even in this thread people say they've tried it, and found it to be too difficult.

It's simple: People enjoy eating. People eat when they're bored, because of habit, or socially. No reason to believe they abstain from those things 16 hours a day.

It's not like all of that 16 hours is sleep. On average, more people are getting less than 7 hours of sleep.

https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/data-and-statistics/adults.html

Fasting is not an on/off switch, but too many calories (>10-20) in a short amount of time pushes you out of a fasted state. It's very likely people are snacking or drinking calories within those hours after waking, and before lunch.

Also, some people will often over eat one day, and then under eat the next. This could help get through a 16 hour fast a few days every week. I think those times are usually over represented when self-reporting these habits.

Intermittent fasting has has nothing to do with being fat or skinny. My point about "skin and bones" is more about how normal it is to comment on someone that isn't overweight. I can't imagine people tolerating fat-shaming people in a friendly social context.

Hard to imagine skipping breakfast, lunch, coffee/tea w/milk & cream, and all snacking during the day, everyday is normal outside America. Isn't burned bread with beans or butter for breakfast a thing in the UK?

16:8 means if your last calories are before 10PM, you wouldn't eat anything at all until after 2 PM. And this would be every day, not every other day.

12:12 might be more common, but not consistently.

...got tired of debating whether it was healthy or not...

I've had a similar experience. "unhealthy" seems to often be used in place of "not normal."

I don't blame them. Advertising has been pushing "normal" food choices for 100+ years. Social gatherings are focused too much on eating. People are shamed for being "skin and bones."

I've been doing it for more than 10 years. I never get hunger pangs. I don't feel the need to eat something before leaving the house, or stopping at a drive-thru while out. I'm able to make better food choices. It doesn't mean I starve myself, or abstain from eating lunch/dinner with friends. I get all necessary calories for whatever my goals are (ie fat loss, maintenance, or weight gain).

Constant calorie intake from accessible food products designed to sit on store shelves for months should be considered not normal and unhealthy.

You should ask it to write a Weird Al parody of the song.

https://tokenterminal.com/leaderboards/earnings