>The idea that banning certain information will somehow result in it disappearing has been shown repeatedly to not work
Maybe it didn't work in the old days.
But now maybe the CEO of Cloudflare will wake up one morning, decide he doesn't like your politics and block your DNS.
Now you might wake up one morning and find that Mailchimp have terminated your account because they don't like your politics (Molyneux).
Now your social media twitter clone might be banned by the Apple/Google store because they don't like what people are posting on it (Gab). As if you're a publisher... which you're not under section 230...
Now your GoFundme gets pulled if whatever leftist running GoFundme decides they don't like you.
Now the payment companies won't process your payments (too many examples to name).
Now, despite being the fourth largest newspaper in the country, your twitter account will be disabled indefinitely for posting "hacked" "russian disinformation" that turns out to be neither hacked nor disinformation. And we find out after the election that the Attorney General of Delaware has been investigating this matter for over a year.
Now some dipshit moderator on Hacker News will shadowban you permanently on a whim.
Your google docs will be blocked for violating the terms of service.
Youtube will demonetize you.
There is nowhere to hide from the dystopia that every fucking retarded left-winger here is so eager to embrace.
It's like being in the middle of the red scare, but everyone says they're ok with telephone companies listening to the bad people's conversations and disconnecting their phone lines if they mention communism. Because, you know, they're "private companies" or something. The only cold comfort is that it will surely be used against them one day.
You have an incredibly well put message here, but then you went and tacked on those last two paragraphs that border on uncivil, are polarizing, and (IMO) fail to add anything meaningful.
>Because, you know, they're "private companies" or something.
Wait so are you for them being able to do whatever they want, where you can be banned from their service? Or do you want them under the arm of the government where they could be regulated? I think you're just mad at the culture. Trump isn't gonna fix that
Those aren't mutually exclusive. The government can simultaneously regulate specific behaviors of large entities where there is reason for concern while otherwise largely leaving them to do whatever they want.
I don't think GP is necessarily suggesting that Trump will address their objections or that they personally support him. Rather, I read it as suggesting that much of his support may in fact be due to backlash against such cultural trends on the left.
What about the postal service then? That is a common carrier. Never mind being bombarded with bigotry, people can bombard you with literal bombs using the postal service, but hey if some kids are shitposting memes on 8chan... well we have to shut down that service altogether.
Radio, TV, and newspaper are each a better analogy.
Postal service is more akin to the infrastructure of radio/TV/newspaper (which differs, and is rather not one but various, e.g. cable, FM, and paperboys).
The analogy with Internet would be transit providers. The undersea cables between US and EU, for example. These are heavily logged, e.g. by UK. Imagine all your post be scanned, that'd be GDR-esque.
Isn't a possible answer that people's (net of tax) incomes are flat, but they can still afford to increase consumption because these services are government subsidized (directly or indirectly)?
I replied to a sibling with more details. Indexing by code point is only the smallest (and easiest to solve) part of the problem of dealing with non ASCII text.
It's not so much distrust of middlemen, as it is distrust of anonymous middlemen. And also automated middlemen. People are happier getting shafted by a person they can see than a bot they can't. Otherwise, they would be hurling abuse at Apu down at the Kwik-e-mart when he charges them 30% extra for a quart of milk just because he bridges time (11pm) and space (down on the corner) to provide liquidity and make it convenient for them.
Part of this is also algorithm aversion (even here on HN) - watch how people are reacting to Tesla autopilot crashes. There is a lot of tin foil stuff about 'algos gone haywire', but I can tell you now that humans fat fingering in the market were both more common and more deadly.
"By who? NASA? The people the… Hang on a minute. No, no, see this is quite serious. But can I just – just one thing. NASA, NASA… The people that landed men on the moon?"
Can anyone explain to me what is happening in this bit?
It's either:
a) Brain Cox doesn't know that NASA is responsible for GISTEMP and is completely incredulous at the mention of NASA (The people that landed men on the moon?), as if they aren't relevant to the discussion.
or
b) Brian Cox is aware that NASA maintains one of the major surface temperature datasets, but thinks that it is completely beyond the pale to question any of the decisions (adjustments, station selection) that go into the construction of GISTEMP, because they are NASA (The people that landed men on the moon!!!).
It's perfectly possible to believe that society should accept homosexuality and also be against gay marriage. It's a complex issue. 'Marriage' is a religious ceremony, and freedom of religion and association is a thing. If the Christians don't want to let the gays join their club and do their funny little ceremony, then so be it. Any change needs to be driven by the Pope and the church itself, not enforced by the state.
That is completely distinct from the concept of a legal union as defined by the state, which should be available to all consenting adults. Hell, as a mathematical type myself, if you can get it working in 2 dimensions you should be able to generalize to n dimensions, so why not legalize a union between any n consenting sentient beings while we're at it?
The bigger mystery is why any non-christian gay people would care...?? If you're not Christian, you shouldn't care about a religious 'marriage', only civil unions. If you are Christian, you should take it up with your Church and work on change from within. I mean how is it going to work? If you're a Christian gay and you feel hurt and not included because your faith denies you the right to a religious marriage, are you really going to feel any more included when the state kicks the door down and forces them to accept you? They have to decide to accept you on their own.
"Marriage" had been the English name for the civil unions as well as the religious unions for much longer than the modern separation of Church and State changed those into distinct institutions with the same name.
"Civil union" as an institution name was created in the US for the separate-but-notionally-equal state law institution adopted in some areas while denying civil marriage to same-sex partners.
Selection pressure may well have shifted towards C4 in the future if we hadn't come along and been kind enough to dig up some fossilized carbon and put it back into circulation.
Lol, as opposed to all the other actors in the economy who provide a service.
>and the fact that they make the spread smaller is a bit of a side effect
It's not 'a bit of a side effect', it is what they have to do to earn fills or they will be undercut by their competition. Narrowing the spread is literally what a market maker is paid to do. It is their reason for existence. It isn't a 'side effect'. If you make a spread narrower than your competition, you steal his customers. Otherwise you don't trade and you don't make any money and you are out of business.
> Why call that a service?
It is a service. A very useful one. They offer, for a specified price, to sell (or buy) a financial instrument to (or from) you.
No one forces you to use it. If you don't want to, and think you can do better, you can take your chances and place a limit order in the book instead.
So like all services, it is completely optional, costs you money (to cross the spread), and provides you a benefit (immediate execution and certainty of price).
I suspect what you are struggling with, is that you don't realise that risk transferral is a benefit. Take for example, the dairy farmer who sells his milk to a company (a middleman) that transports it, pasteurizes it, bottles it and on-sells it to a supermarket chain. In this case, you would probably tell me that you can see what service they provide - they add value by pasteurizing and bottling the milk, which they specialize in. Which is true. But there is a hidden value too - they take risk away from the farmer. The milk could spoil, the trucks could breakdown, the vats be contaminated, the supermarkets cancel their orders. All of these are risks that the farmer would have to bear if the farmer wanted to bottle their own milk, take it to a market and sell it. Part of the service provided is to take risk away from the farmer and be paid for it.
That is all a market maker does. They offer you the opportunity to dispose of your risk (the risk that the financial instrument you hold may move against you in the time it takes you to find a buyer or seller) instantly by paying a very (very) small fee to do so.
> Lol, as opposed to all the other actors in the economy who provide a service.
I see what you mean and there may not even be a visible difference from outside.
But I think there's a big difference between "I'm going to make money getting grocery products as cheap as possible and selling them as high as local market can handle it" and "I'm going to open a grocery store in an area which doesn't have it yet and make money providing products to people". Effectively they're the same and some people may think of it as the first case.
I just don't believe anyone doing HFT cares one bit about the rest of the market. They are in it to make money. It just happens to lower the spread. If there was a way to do it by making the spread larger and pissing everyone else off, they'd still do it.
Different example in real life in some countries - homeless people collecting glass bottles from the street so they can return them and get some change back in countries where recycling cost is added to the price by default. You're paying for it when you're buying a drink and not returning the bottle yourself. They get money for cleaning the street. But it just happens to be connected - I wouldn't say you're paying the homeless for the street cleaning service.
> I wouldn't say you're paying the homeless for the street cleaning service.
I certainly would. Are you arguing just because the government is interposed in the process that it is no longer a service you are paying for?
Ok, let's try a different angle. Imagine a world where financial markets aren't electronic and brokers don't exist. You have 5 Apple shares that have a fair value of $500. The only way to sell your shares in this fantasy world is to physically find someone who wants them. Maybe you call people on the phone, maybe you spam some e-mails. You get the full $500 if you find a buyer, but it takes labour and time. The labour is costing you, since you could be doing something productive that you are more skilled at. And the time is costing you, because you want the $2500 now to pay the rent, and if Apple shares plunge you could be in trouble!
So I, for the first time ever, get the idea to set up a lovely looking shop on the corner and offer to buy them from you for $499 each, and I'll handle the rest. You come in with your share certificate, we shake hands, make small-talk, exchange money. Surely you agree this is a service?
So I am slightly baffled. All that has changed is that the process outlined above has been made electronic, and now you claim it isn't a service? Do shops selling shit on ebay no longer qualify as services?
Maybe it didn't work in the old days.
But now maybe the CEO of Cloudflare will wake up one morning, decide he doesn't like your politics and block your DNS.
Now you might wake up one morning and find that Mailchimp have terminated your account because they don't like your politics (Molyneux).
Now your social media twitter clone might be banned by the Apple/Google store because they don't like what people are posting on it (Gab). As if you're a publisher... which you're not under section 230...
Now your GoFundme gets pulled if whatever leftist running GoFundme decides they don't like you.
Now the payment companies won't process your payments (too many examples to name).
Now, despite being the fourth largest newspaper in the country, your twitter account will be disabled indefinitely for posting "hacked" "russian disinformation" that turns out to be neither hacked nor disinformation. And we find out after the election that the Attorney General of Delaware has been investigating this matter for over a year.
Now some dipshit moderator on Hacker News will shadowban you permanently on a whim.
Your google docs will be blocked for violating the terms of service.
Youtube will demonetize you.
There is nowhere to hide from the dystopia that every fucking retarded left-winger here is so eager to embrace. It's like being in the middle of the red scare, but everyone says they're ok with telephone companies listening to the bad people's conversations and disconnecting their phone lines if they mention communism. Because, you know, they're "private companies" or something. The only cold comfort is that it will surely be used against them one day.
AnD wHy dId PeOpLe vOtE fOr a RacIst??!!