Being a market maker doesn't provide any special information. I'm guessing someone misunderstood something like Level II quotes (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/06/level2quote...) as being information that hedge funds / investment banks / pros have that retail traders don't... but it's just semi-public information that anyone can pay for access to.
Jane Street also isn't doing pump and dumps, they're not in crypto discord channels hyping some coin or running bot farms of twitter accounts to talk up some stock.
They run several different types of trading that might interact with other people attempting pump & dumps though, which could impact in either direction- plausibly they might do a momentum trade that follows the direction of movement or they might recognize a price discrepancy happening and trade against it.
More accurately, they have complex models pulling in many, many signals to inform trading, and I'm being a bit reductionist to categorize it as these two things.
That's not fringe at all. That was a claim made by anti-drug commercials that ran on TV across the US so frequently that it was satirized by South Park in 2002.
This seems like a lot of different people voicing different opinions and talking past each other. Roughly, I think you're jumping into the middle of a hypothetical conversation that went like this:
Person A: "It's bad that we throw people in prison for pot, and use possession of pot as a subtext under which to harass people, perform warrantless searches, etc. We should just legalize it."
Person B: "But it might be bad for children and teenagers if they get access to it"
Person A: "Okay fine, we legalize it for people over the age of 21, happy now?"
Person A could be said to have compromised or ceded-ground to person B here, even though they themselves might actually not even disagree.
It's maybe slightly less trivial to do, but still incredibly common to buy awards, recognition, press releases, positive reviews and commentary in publications.
You might be shocked to find out how much the performers being written about in magazines or discussed on TV shows is a direct line to the production company promoting them. Similar for awards.
> You might be shocked to find out how much the performers being written about in magazines or discussed on TV shows is a direct line to the production company promoting them. Similar for awards.
I mean Payola as a term literally came from bribing DJs on radio stations to play your / your artist's music.
For the same people accept Tether's claims of solvency even though they refuse audits and obviously lie about ownership of various assets. For the same reason people ignore wash trading. For the same reason people continue using Sam-coins even after FTX's implosion.
Because A) they're not paying attention, B) they're in denial and C) because they think they can profit in the short term before it collapses, or that the odds are in their favor to profit despite the risks.
The parent comment, and the series of messages they linked to, are such peak "terminally online" content that I suspect nothing one can write here can help.
The paranoia and distrust is so intense that every statement will be seen as a coded phrase, "dog whistle" or obscure reference to some sinister thing.
Which is particularly unfortunate, because I think Elon's tweet is genuinely wrong and bad. But it kinda feels like these people need to disconnect from the internet and go for a walk. Maybe have a real life conversation with a real life regular person on the other side of the political aisle.
What are you talking about? This rhetoric isn't a dogwhistle anymore, it's literal neonazi language going back to the David Duke/KKK days. Same for so-called "remigration" which has been coming up with stunning regularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration. When I was growing up you would become a social pariah for spouting this kind of stuff.
I don't get it. Are you waiting for someone to literally say "I fucking hate brown people and love Hitler" before calling them out? For what it's worth, we're basically already there. See Trump's recent remarks about Somalis. EDIT: and somehow I forgot the time when Young Republicans were LITERALLY PRAISING HITLER, then doubled down when exposed: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-...
You're blind to what you don't care to see, I guess. As for people on the opposite side of the political aisle from me, they're busy dragging Latino children out of schools and abducting people who overstayed their visa to Salvadoran torture camps, or supporting the same, so fuck their inhuman politics very much indeed.
The social media post you orig linked to has none of that
While I agree with the general problem, you do yourself a disservice by using such a poor example with so many more potent ones out there. You also do a disservice to the movement to fight back by making easy examples for "look at how out of touch they are" (i.e. making mountains out of mole hills when you could point out the actual mountains)
Sure, there may be more pressing matters than the richest man in the world enthusiastically boosting Tweets that describe Western civilization as getting raped to death by the unnamed (you-know-who-I-mean) Others, but it is absolutely part of the same white nationalist zeitgeist, lexicon, and community. The rhetoric Musk uses is *identical* to what Miller and the White House, Reform, AfD, etc. are using to dehumanize immigrants and to direct racial hate and violence towards them. And it’s just one example out of hundreds.
I can’t do anything about Miller being a ghoul, but if I can help one or two people have second thoughts about using Twitter or Grok, it will be well worth it.
The dynamic seems to be identifying some phrasing as a secret neo-Nazi dogwhistle and haranguing people who use it. However, that doesn't effect any change, so a new word has to be identified as secretly neo-Nazi. Repeat ad infinitum, until the terminally online exist in such a rarefied universe that 99% of all humans are secret neo-Nazis.
This is bad, because it both 1) waters down actual neo-Naziism (which is fringe and rare) and worse 2) alienates people to the point where they support non-neo-Nazi but bad policy.
(For me personally, my take on "Western Civilization" is along the lines of Gandhi: I think it'd be a wonderful idea.)
An interesting secondary affect of this, is that today Wikipedia is flooded with misleading attribution in the opposite direction, from presumably well-meaning groups and individuals who are overzealous in their goal of writing the women back into the record.
I'm of the view that acknowledging the systemic discrimination that prevented women, Black people, and even working-class whites from having the opportunity to pursue scientific research historically is better than rewriting history to elevate tangential assistants into leading researchers. But, maybe diverse representation in the stories we tell is more important for the future than accuracy of those stories, it's hard to know.
> Such a cure can not exist. Autism is something you are born with and that is part of you.
Signs of autism generally show up in early childhood, but it has not been proven that it is something a person is born with. Vaccines have been studied enough to rule them out, but there are still a zillion other things that babies today are exposed to that could be a factor, from antibiotics to endocrine disrupting chemicals to microplastics to viruses or even something we're not even considering medically today.
Also, tons of birth defects and inborn diseases can be cured. We cure cleft palates and spina bifida routinely. We manage diabetes and Phenylketonuria effectively enough that patients can live regular lives. Here's a paper published in the prestigious Cell journal covering 700 different genetic disorders which can be treated today: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(25)00110-7
It's possible that in the future autism will have a cure, a preventative measure or a highly effective treatment.
Many people view the existence of billionaires as a profound societal flaw. The accumulation of such obscene wealth by an individual is only possible because of systemic problems which prevented employees from capturing their fair share of their productivity, prevented competitors from entering the market to lower margins or prevented customers from being able to purchase at lower prices.
It's a good thing that he's giving away 4% of his wealth. He'll still have $140,000,000,000 left after this donation though, which is relevant context.
So there is no actual evidence, and you're committing a hate crime if you ask to see evidence or point out that there's no evidence.
If a white person has a drunk uncle or crazy aunt tell a wild conspiracy theory at a family gathering, people dismiss them as a kook. But if an indigenous person does the same thing, it's supposed to be treated as sacred cultural knowledge being passed down?
I have an uncle who swears there are thousands of people who've been killed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He has lists and websites and links to obituaries about deaths "deemed suicides" or "not investigated" or "unsolved". I don't think that my skepticism about his claims is violence or hate.
> I don't think that my skepticism about his claims is violence or hate.
You realise the investigations are on-going after the initial community-led assessments done with remote sensing tech like GPRs (ground penetrating radars)? This is where this denialism takes an ugly turn.
> If a white person has a drunk uncle or crazy aunt tell a wild conspiracy theory at a family gathering, people dismiss them as a kook.
I mean, new Holocaust mass graves are still being discovered as institutions keep their investigations up using GPRs! You deny those graves, too? Sure Holocaust denialism is filled with "kooks" unto itself, but surely, we're not those kooks? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327194663_Holocaust...
You are, about pretty much all of this.
Being a market maker doesn't provide any special information. I'm guessing someone misunderstood something like Level II quotes (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/06/level2quote...) as being information that hedge funds / investment banks / pros have that retail traders don't... but it's just semi-public information that anyone can pay for access to.
Jane Street also isn't doing pump and dumps, they're not in crypto discord channels hyping some coin or running bot farms of twitter accounts to talk up some stock.
They run several different types of trading that might interact with other people attempting pump & dumps though, which could impact in either direction- plausibly they might do a momentum trade that follows the direction of movement or they might recognize a price discrepancy happening and trade against it.
More accurately, they have complex models pulling in many, many signals to inform trading, and I'm being a bit reductionist to categorize it as these two things.