Nobody thinks that a president type figure appointing someone else to run a part of the government they are responsible for is an erosion of democracy.
What, specifically, is the alternative? The president does literally everything? We have elections for each dmv clerk?
Or maybe we draw some kind of line and say some jobs should have elections and others aren't worth the effort.
(And no, you can't just say "the job of dmv clerk should't exist" because someone has to do it and I'd much rather that person be answerable to an elected government than a corporation or worse)
What you’re describing is how administrative bureaucracies used to work in the U.S. before the 1920s and in Europe before the E.U. That’s consistent with democracy. The anti-democratic part is when the elected officials began delegating more and more power to those bureaucracies and those bureaucracies became more independent and insulated from elections. That when the backslide happened.
In the U.S. that happened because of legislation and new legal doctrines in the 1930s. In Europe it happened because of increasing delegation of power to the centralized E.U. bureaucracy.
I mean, the obvious point here is that none of these people are selling linux (or wayland or whatever). You could argue some of these projects over promise in terms of features and so forth, but again, it's not like people are paying for it.
You can certainly be unhappy with a piece of software regardless of if you paid for it, and there's an argument to be made that linux users benefit from it becoming more popular, but we're still mostly talking about volunteers creating software for themselves and then choosing to share it with others.
The top 3 most popular index fund ETFs track S&P500, which doesn't really pull this kind of shenanigan. Only QQQ tracks the NASDAQ 100 and it's in 5th place by assets under management.
You should probably read a book about index investing if you are going to invest.
Yeah, but the S&P500 is hugely concentrated in MAG7, which are all Nasdaq listed. So when they all get sold to buy SpaceX, you can bet your butt something's gonna happen to a S&P500 ETF.
SPY is somewhat concentrated in mag7 (or the other 93 stocks in QQQ), but only a small percent of mag 7 are owned via QQQ, which has 400B aum. (Mag 7 is 19T.)
The bottom line is all this fuckery is a tiny blip for most investors. It's far more concerning to me the societal harm that will come from further enriching Elon.
Being added to the index is literally the only thing causing "the squeeze" according to this description though so how does that benefit either the author or the index holder?
If the stock was added to the index at a normal period then all the shares would be available.
The author wants to buy ahead of the indexes and benefit from the squeeze; he wants the normal rules of waiting a year before SpaceX is eligible to join the indexes to apply.
It's substack, not ycombinator. The article is obviously not targeted at ycombinator.
And I don't think he's doing a pump and dump. He's just doing the very human act about ranting about things that affect him. His self-interest colors the piece.
tbf, when most of those posting here were children, access to smartphones/tablets with unrestricted internet connection wasn't a problem
but i do remember my parents actually raising me pretty hands-on, taking care of me not watching stuff I shouldn't be watching which of course existed and was easily available
Access to smartphones/tablets with unrestricted internet connection is only a problem today when parents give their children access to smartphones/tablets with unrestricted internet connections.
Cell phones and tablets don't spontaneously appear whenever a child wants one. Parents have the ability to hand devices over to children when they have time to watch them while they use it and remove those devices from them when they don't.
> Parents have the ability to hand devices over to children when they have time to watch them while they use it and remove those devices from them when they don't.
Sure, if we assume the kids are kept in a locked box at all times, I suppose.
What about when they go to school and use internet devices there? Some of them are even issuing personal laptops. Or they hang out with their friends or go to the library or visit a pc cafe (a bit rare in america, but still...)
Even beyond that, exactly how often are you monitoring what they do at home? Are you watching over their shoulder every hour they have access to an internet device?
Like, kids have been smoking/drinking/having sex/etc while their parents are ignorant for 100s of years, what makes you think parents are suddenly going to be able to supervise all internet access?
When I was a child we didn't even have wifi of any kind and I still did things like sneak down to the family desktop after my parents went to sleep and "surf the web".
None of this is to say that we should created nanny-net that controls the entire internet in the hopes of protecting children, but there's a lot of room between that and doing literally nothing.
I'm reminded of fairly recent efforts to strongly discourage people smoking in movies/tv and banning actual advertising and how effective that was at decreasing the population of smokers, at least until vaping came along.
The point is sometimes we can identify seemingly small areas that will make a large impact and take action there.
If everyone had kids at 18-20, then the grandparents could take care of the grandkids while in their 40s while the parents build their careers from 20-40, then start taking care of the grandkids as the cycle repeats
And then you end up raising your grandkids instead of the kids you gave birth to. It's not something that comes without cost. And what if you don't particularly trust your parents to raise kids? I suppose you would have no idea whether you did or not, because they would not have parented you...
Peoples 40s and 50s are their most productive years. We would be better off just letting people take 10 years off in their twenties - but most people would just party party party (what they do anyway)
Those four grandparents could end up with anywhere from 1-8+ grandkids though, depending on how many children they had, and how many grandchildren come along
have you heard of people not surviving into old age, or not being present or not being able to take care of kids? What the fuck is wrong with people in this comment section?
> have you heard of people not surviving into old age
not really, overall the life expectancy is growing well over 80 years old. unless you live, like, in the woods and feed off berries and hunting or something like that.
and yeah sure there might be somebody that loses their parents at 15, absolutely. i'm sorry for them, but they are not statistically representative in any way.
It really seems you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I have a couple of friends married for about 4-5 years, with a 4-years old son and a one year old daughter. They both have graduate degrees and stable jobs. They are near 40 years old.
Man, they are two zombies. They are drained. They push forward for the immense love of their kids but it’s incredibly evident they’re drained.
And the thing is… having kids at almost 40 should really be discouraged. They simply don’t have the same energy they had when they were 20, of course. Heck, i’m 33 and it’s evident to me I don’t have the same energy as when I was 23.
This modern idea that one should postpone having kids is incredibly stupid, I hope at some point society will self-correct somehow.
128 random bits in some random format aren't a uuid. 0.2ml of water isn't a raindrop. If I say "you can provide me with a uuid" and you give me a base64-encoded string, it's getting rejected by validation. If I say "this text needs to be a Unicode string" and you give me a base64-encoded Unicode string's byte array, it's not going to go well.
Why are you implying that converting from base64 to and from standard UUID representation (hyphen-delimited hexadecimal) is more than a trivial operation? Either client or server can do this at any point.
Does Postgres not truly support UUID because it internally represents it as 128 bits instead of a huge number of encoded bytes in the standard representation? Of course not.
reply