Surely if plants are absorbing more CO2 than we thought, that's a good thing for climate change? (More CO2 absorbed by plants -> less CO2 staying in the atmosphere -> less warming. No?)
Most emitted CO2 also remains in the carbon cycle.
What matters is accumulation at a particular point in the cycle because CO₂ is added to the atmosphere faster than it is removed. If it is removed faster then it ceases to be a problem.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
It seems to me the first and last line don't really add anything and I don't see why the middle sentence is necessarily true.
I don't understand this reasoning. How does the presence of a single recent post on HN say anything about if the errors go in one direction or in both directions?
The errors on direct influences to warming have been overwhelming on the "too optimistic" direction. We are above the most pessimistic predictions from decades ago.
The errors on consequences of the warming... I'm not sure one can even talk about them without citing specific studies, because those things tend to have undefined timeframes and way into the future contexts (like this 4°C one... is this even possible to achieve by burning fossil fuels?)
Given the number of ultrarich and powerful people that already hate the Hindenberg folks... my guess would be that there is some calculus here about the incoming U.S. presidential administration's enmity towards whistleblowers and their prior statements about changing libel laws in the U.S.
Starting next week, it's open season on suckers. It's going to be like the glory days of the Tel Aviv binary options scammers, who at one time were 40% of the Israeli finance sector and had good political connections.[1] Crypto deregulation is coming. No more CFPB enforcement! No more SEC enforcement!
There are still people who haven't lost money in crypto yet who can be targeted.
They're all little people. No one will help them.
Just pay off some influencers and start up your scam.[2]
>It's going to be like the glory days of the Tel Aviv binary options scammers, who at one time were 40% of the Israeli finance sector and had good political connections.
When I started at Goldman Sachs 25 years ago, I was told early on of an "Israeli discount" and "Canadian discount"; that is, investors were more skeptical of companies based in those countries.
I was not told of any more details than that at the time, but I now wonder if what you said is the cause?
Musk famously hates short sellers, the Trump Social CEO has done the "blame the short sellers" bit, Eric Trump is hyping crypto coins, Trump himself is eager to take credit whenever the market goes up... I think it's almost guaranteed that they'll target short sellers specifically at some point. They're a easy target to blame, and divert attention from the the fact that they are actually fleecing investors right at this moment.
Hindenburg exposes hucksters and frauds. Hucksters and frauds have now taken over the highest office. He just sees the writing on the wall and needs to get out now.
There is a very fine line between investigative journalism and market manipulation. They treaded it pretty carefully so far, but were bound to slip up sooner or later. Especially now that they are prominent enough that HFT bots are instantly shorting every company they mention in new posts. Quitting while they are ahead is a good move.
Off the top of my head the reporting about Block - CashApp was disgraceful and Hindenburg got sued for it. Not sure how that's going to play out with disbanding the "company."
I don't think Hindenburg is scared of being sued, otherwise they wouldn't have been in the business in the first place. Their investigations are extremely thorough, with everything fully documented, mostly from public records, for the specific purpose that if/when they show up in court, they can be confident of the basis of their findings.
P.S. where did you see Block suing Hindenburg? The closest thing I can find is 'Block said it intended to “explore legal action” against Hindenburg, who sought to “deceive and confuse” Block investors to “profit from a declined stock price.”' which is just PR speak
>I don't think Hindenburg is scared of being sued, otherwise they wouldn't have been in the business in the first place
They should be. If doesn't matter how well everything is documented or how above-board the company is when the courts turn into kangaroo courts for a thoroughly corrupt administration. They're right to get out now while they still can.
No, Nate is not afraid of being sued, he is afraid of being indicted for fraud. The difference being that you just pay your way out of lawsuits, but indictments are a bit more serious
The court finds them guilty of violating which laws, exactly?
Sorry I really don't get what you are trying to say. In order to lose in court, you need to first find a law where Hindenburg could be breaking. But I don't see that happening, especially as it's almost impossible for them to be found guilty of defamation due to the First Amendment.
> the committee confirmed previously stated findings that there was "no evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of management or the board of directors."
After the external auditors resigned saying that the financials couldn't be trusted the fact that an internal report run from the board of the directors clears them mightn't be as generally reassuring as you seem to find it.
They're complaining because they run human written sites but they've been deranked because Google can no longer tell human content from AI. Google is now privileging sites like Forbes, USA Today and Reddit. Google wants to rank their sites but it can't distinguish their content from the ocean of AI content. They have a legitimate gripe, that Google is no longer favoring niche content sites.
What sort of “mobile tracking info” do you have in mind, and where could you obtain this information for an individual? Maybe (maybe!) you can get their physical location with the right access to certain ISP datasets, but the website info? Is that something that is available for sale on an individual basis?
The article states that the trader obtained his information by hacking into poorly secured corporate email accounts and configuring auto-forwarding rules to send himself copies of incoming emails. Specifically, he triggered password reset flows with “security questions” and data mined open sources for metadata like family names which helped him guess the answers to the security questions. So overall, it wasn’t a very sophisticated hack, and certainly seems more straight forward than “getting the mobile tracking info of M&A bankers.”
In the US, there are commercial companies selling this data. Probably not associated with a name, but you could buy the data (I think they sell the whole dataset for a relatively affordable price), figure out who is a M&A lawyer by checking which IDs show up at their headquarters + some other relevant location, then track them from there going forward.
The data is likely collected from ad and analytics SDKs in various unrelated apps, so you just need the lawyer to be using one of these apps.
Journalists have demonstrated that the data is good enough to identify and track e.g. intelligence service employees.
The negative of that is quite interesting. Take SEC web server logs and look for invest firm subnet addresses. Firms not appearing in those logs do 1.5% worse.
Interestingly some M&A banks keep (or used to, at least) discreet residential addresses where the crucial meetings between senior people can take place over dinner rather than them being obviously seen to meet at the banks or their own offices.
If you are going to make a video about how comedy works you have to begin it with a joke and then use your theory to explain that joke. I don't want to hear your theory unless you give me something to think about first.
Brownlee is such a mystery to me. The #1 rule of Youtube is show energy, show enthusiasm. Brownlee is like if Urkel were given a sedative and told to review the latest iPhone
You mean he talks more like a normal person talking about a product rather than a Youtuber going over the top with everything? The fact that he is genuine is a big part of his appeal.
He’s been doing it a long time, has an excellent understanding of the tech industry, and is a master at producing content that is easy for everyone to digest. I’ve been watching him for years and have always thought he had a knack for his craft. Just because he has a calm demeanor shouldn’t take away from what he does, but in my opinion should add to it even more.
The #1 rule is clearly not show energy, show enthusiasm. It's the #1 rule for a subset of content, like MrBeast. The content world is a big place, and the silent majority has no interest in loud and obnoxious.
Right. Take Asianometry-- a channel dedicated to economics, politics, and tech in Asia. Very high quality stuff. He goes into deep detail about a lot of technical stuff.. and as you can imagine his delivery isn't anything like a showman. He can be monotonous but if anything that is likely preferred by his audience, given his niche.
If Intel is critical to the US industrial base, why aren't Nvidia and Apple stepping up to support Intel? What is the point of $3T national champions like Apple and Nvidia if they ship the industrial base overseas.
Microsoft bought Apple shares for their own benefit instead of for supporting a competitor (it was too cheap for them and they could argue not a monpoly).
Intel's foundry business is unsuitable for NVIDIA to use to produce GPUs. Intel's foundry business is also not a complement in the economics sense, as in "commoditize your complement"; it's a substitute for TSMC fabs (but a bad substitute). The market impact of Intel's foundry business is that incremental improvements to the fabs used more or less exclusively for Intel's x86 CPUs does not lead to higher sales of NVIDIA GPUs. It would take an unrealistically huge advance in quality or drop in price for Intel's fabs and the output thereof to affect demand for NVIDIA GPUs.
That would be an argument for splitting Intel into two, the contract fab business and the design business. It's tough to make a partnership with Intel to fab your chip design if their other arm is competing with you on the same thing. Intel's process is tailored to their own designs which make it hard for outsiders to optimize. So, it's not only risky from a business perspective to make Intel your manufacturing partner, it's also more difficult than the alternatives.
Imho it's pretty likely that this will happen. Intel's IP will be sold off, while their manufacturing business remain, both due to the geopolitical situation and because although they have seen setbacks in recent years, they are still damn good at making chips.
They are not _the best_ at making chips -- sure. But don't get it twisted, they are damn good at making chips. There are only 3 companies out there who are even in this race; Intel is still one of them.
Nvidia and Apple are international megacorporations, not national champions. Companies that do business and have shareholders all around the world tend to detach themselves from national concerns, as those are not in their interests. And they always keep the option to move their headquarters open, in case something goes wrong in their home country.
This effect is more obvious in small countries, but large ones are not immune to it either, especially if their fortunes turn.
Microsoft spent peanuts (for them) on Apple stock in the 90s. Saving Intel will take much more than that for anyone.
Not to mention that Apple had atleast a salvageable IP if done well. Nobody else could compete with them on shipping MacOS machines. Intel has no such moat.
TFA says companies have an incentive for intel to succeed so they're not all reliant on TSMC.
Apple used to dual-source their chips from Samsung/TSMC before they went all in with TSMC, but it's clear they're now vulnerable to geopolitical tensions.
> TFA says companies have an incentive for intel to succeed so they're not all reliant on TSMC.
Kind of. If Intel keep making shit, it doesn't help anyone if they succeed doing it. They are nothing making products that are a viable alternative to TSMC, so it makes no difference if they vanish.
Apple and Nvidia are where they are today in part because of their use of the best fabs. If you force them to use Intel, their edge will erode and they will no longer be $3T national champions.
GF sold its EUV machine several years ago when it decided to stop trying to compete at the leading edge of logic processes.
So, they're not comparable to what TSMC, Intel and Samsung are doing.
They're not in a position to grind out the AI supercomputers of today's excitement. Those aren't the chips I'm worried about from a national security perspective.
It's the microcontrollers and FPGAs controlling weapons systems that really should be made within the country boundaries and that should be completely fine on GF's machinery.
I suppose there are multiple reasons why saving Intel might be important. Making chips used for defence seems the most persuasive one to me.
There's been a continual drive towards better semiconductor processes. That's really important for things like GPU compute. I think we're past diminishing returns for a lot of other things. There's probably a ~14nm arm chip in the keyboard I'm typing on that's only there because it was the cheapest option. Does the ECU in a car benefit from being sub 7nm? Maybe, probably not by much.
The ECU in your car doesn't benefit much from newer processes, but the chips required for self-driving do.
That's the special thing about leading semiconductors: they enable other technologies.
From the personal computer to IoT and AI, all of these were at some point enabled by advances in semiconductor scaling.
You're only focused on what leading edge nodes provide today, but they enable much more than just speculative AI hyperscaling in the long term.
I use a Sansa clip because it has clickable buttons that I can feel for when I can't use a phone screen, like at the dentist or in a sky village with light restrictions. Also I don't ever load my phone with the 2GB of my favorite mp3s, and I don't want to (and sometimes can't) stream music from a service on the internet.
I use this too, since like 2013 or something. Still works. Also it has an SD card slot, so plenty of storage. And it includes a real working FM radio, weighs approximately nothing, and can clip to my sleeve. Battery lasts for ages. I never saw the appeal of putting music on my phone.
