the_drunkard

That's a lot of text, but I fail to see your point. Is there one?

In keeping with the spirit of the author; freedom is not a goal, but a direction. And broadly speaking, we're moving in the right direction.

Unfortunately, you sound like you've become somewhat of a zealot. A byproduct of being spoon fed rage via the nightly media /twitter cycle.

Statistically there's one specific group of peoples that drive a disproportionate amount of violent crime. Specifically murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

Raw data is here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

I think stepping back and realizing how far we've come, not only as a country but also globally is worth recognizing. Harboring venom from past wrongs won't do you any good; if anything it appears to be obfuscating the present.

I think you just stumbled over your own logic.

Hitler used the same line of thinking you just regurgitated.

He branded a group of people as denying German humanity (evil usupers looking to cause harm from within) and used that as justification for the Holocaust.

I think you need a time out.

I actually think about this paradox relative to the uptick in crime in major cities.

Take SF for example where crime has seemingly spiked and there's no willingness to enforce the law /prosecute offenders.

On one hand, a version of Hammurabi's Code (to cut off the hand of thieves) is probably inappropriate. On the other, we've created an environment where there's no repercussion for breaking the law.

Personally, I find myself favoring Hammurabi's approach.

I don't believe his code specifically addressed petty theft; allow me to paint with broad strokes.

You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity.

Probably a bad ethos to harbour, one that I imagine quickly rationalizes violent behavior.

And I think we're all fortunate that in the US there is no prevailing force denying any specific race of their humanity. Is there scar tissue from the past? Certainly.

As Snowden states "freedom is a direction" and we've certainly moved in the right direction over the past 30 years.

Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

Odd foreshadowing, but let's hope that true fascism never metastasizes in the US.

I am curious as to who you believe is currently denying your /others humanity in the US?

Take some risk profile and then bet that low cost automatically balancing stock/bond Vanguard fund beats 90% of hedge funds over 10 years based on risk adjusted return.

That would be a closer "apples to apples" comparison vs. Buffett's bet.

Please read the article. It's explained clearly under Protege Partners, LLC's Argument.

Mr. Buffett is correct in his assertion that, on average, active management in a narrowly defined universe like the S&P; 500 is destined to underperform market indexes. That is a well-established fact in the context of traditional long-only investment management. But applying the same argument to hedge funds is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Having the flexibility to invest both long and short, hedge funds do not set out to beat the market. Rather, they seek to generate positive returns over time regardless of the market environment. They think very differently than do traditional “relative-return” investors, whose primary goal is to beat the market, even when that only means losing less than the market when it falls. For hedge funds, success can mean outperforming the market in lean times, while underperforming in the best of times. Through a cycle, nevertheless, top hedge fund managers have surpassed market returns net of all fees, while assuming less risk as well. We believe such results will continue.

So is your argument that we just haven’t been through a cycle or else the hedge funds would have come out ahead? If they didn’t come out ahead after all of the turmoil, they are (on average) worse than an index fund.

No. The proposition of most platform hedge funds is not to beat the market. It's to generate returns in any type of environment on a risk neutral basis.

So if you invest in a hedge fund, do not expect market returns. Expect range-bound returns in any type of market environment.

Hedge funds are risk management vehicles for institutional money.

The fact that hedge fund managers live from the fees tells what they really think about their skills. Never gamble using your own money.

Most hedge funds don't gamble, but some do have poor risk management (e.g. Melvin Capital).

The proposition of a hedge fund is actually very compelling to institutional money: range-bound returns in any type of market environment. This proposition bodes very well for say major pension funds that want to avoid market risk while also modeling out return + pension liabilities at an assumed rate of return.

This bet is disengeneous as *most hedge funds operate under risk neutral long /short strategies that seek to generate returns irrespective of market conditions.

Want to know what a good year for a PM at a major platform hedge fund (P72, BAM, Millenium, etc... ) looks like? Probably in the range of 8 -12% returns, which translates to 7-figure pay days.

A more in depth explanation below from the article is linked below.

Having the flexibility to invest both long and short, hedge funds do not set out to beat the market. Rather, they seek to generate positive returns over time regardless of the market environment. They think very differently than do traditional “relative-return” investors, whose primary goal is to beat the market, even when that only means losing less than the market when it falls. For hedge funds, success can mean outperforming the market in lean times, while underperforming in the best of times. Through a cycle, nevertheless, top hedge fund managers have surpassed market returns net of all fees, while assuming less risk as well. We believe such results will continue.

Enron and Valeant are two of the most significant examples of corporate malfeasance over the past 20 years; McKinsey or its partners were directly involved in both.

That's not cherry-picking.

McKinsey or its partners have been directly involved in Enron, Valeant, and now an opioid crisis that's claimed thousands (if not millions of lives).

"In for a penny, in for a pound" - this should be McKinsey's new corporate slogan.

Valeant article: https://www.ft.com/content/0bb37fd2-ef63-11e5-aff5-19b4e2536...

Enron article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/mar/24/enron.theob...

The most concerning part about this is the following excerpt which highlights how Twitter is working at behest of the government in India:

Earlier, government sources said the IT Ministry had asked Twitter to suspend these and several other accounts. Sources said the request came from the Home Ministry and law enforcement agencies, and was made to prevent "escalation of law and order (situation) in view of the ongoing farmer agitation".

Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols.

Can you be more specific? Robinhood & Webull are the only two that I'm aware of.

That tactic worked out well during the French Revolution...

Based on this experience, I strongly support voting in person, with an ID.

Shhh, a view like this will get you banned from Twitter... ;)

This is sad because most of what you've said can be applied to lotteries as well, which historically has been criticized as being a "tax" on the poor. The end result is the same: people putting themselves in a worse place financially (on average), just so they can cope with their bleak existence.

Damn. I've never considered the psychological effects of the lottery system, but in a way I think you hit the nail on the head.

Anyways, in the GME scenario it appears that most retail investors are actually in a better place financially because of it.

Oh no, the largest modern day monopoly will no longer pay for political goodwill.

Curious if Twitter will carry-over their draconian (and selectively enforced) censorship rules to Revue.

I assume this was discussed as part of the acquisition? Will publishers have free reign to discuss topics that they want to publish on or do Twitter "rules" govern what's allowed to be discussed?

Can you elaborate on this? I'm very interested, especially given your perspective.

The 2004 election also had its fair share of electronic voting criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_vo...

I think this is a good thing, hopefully it will bring to light any flaws that may exist in Dominion voting systems while testing whether any of these grandiose claims hold up to scrutiny.

And folks, let's not act like this is the first time voting systems have been scrutinized.

Institutional hedge funds got greedy and they're getting punched in the gut by retail investors; personally i think it's nice to see.

A few comments on the price action:

1) true short interest is unclear; remaining short-sellers will likely be forced to "buy to cover" over the next few days, potentially driving the price even higher.

2) WSB users invested heavily in call options; "exercising a call" option can also drive price action higher if they were sold a "naked call".

Just wanted to say thanks again for the thorough response!

This is helpful, thank you.

Was the contrast brain MRI to make sure you didn't have tumors that were subsequently impacting your hormone production?

Did you have blood work done to diagnose low T?

My understanding is that T levels can vary based on the time of day they're taken, so they likely need to be taken multiple times.

In any event, glad you arrived at a solution!

The victim actually took steps to have content removed and Twitter failed to do so (initially). I wonder if payment vendors will give Twitter the "Pornhub treatment" and de-platform their access to financial services.

Finally on Jan. 28, Twitter replied to Doe and said they wouldn’t be taking down the material, which had already racked up over 167,000 views and 2,223 retweets, the suit states.

“Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time,” the response reads, according to the lawsuit.

I'm curious, which financial planning app do you use for $80 /month?

At best you missed the last two sentences of my reply. At worse, you're being intentionally thick headed.

> When looting and vandalism are allowed to reign supreme, the atmosphere alone sets the stage for more violence.

> Violence begets violence, whether it's committed by BLM protesters or a mob of Trump supporters.

How exactly do you think the BLM protesters are responsible for these murders, or could have acted to prevent them?

Here's a brief summary of violence that occurred in one day of BLM protests in the state of New York:

3 Buffalo cops run over

1 Bronx cop run over

2 NYPD officers assaulted

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2020/06/suv-rams-police-in-bu...

When looting and vandalism are allowed to reign supreme, the atmosphere alone sets the stage for more violence.

Violence begets violence, whether it's committed by BLM protesters or a mob of Trump supporters.

Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook were moderating content.

If Twitter and Facebook hadn't been moderating hate speech, Parler would not exist.

I don't think it's fair to claim Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook moderate hate speech. For example, the Hunter Biden story was actively suppressed on both Twitter and Facebook, essentially confirming long-held beliefs that social media platforms curate based on political ideology.

Subtitle: Japan’s rate of strokes fell during a period when it began eating a bit of meat

Article is paywalled, but the subtitle appears to make a correlation between the consumption of meat in Japan and the decline in the rate of strokes. At face value, this seems dubious.