Somehow YouTube inserted this video into my feed when it had an extremely small number of views. I am not a compass technology fan or outdoor orienteering person or anything, but I do like novel and elegant technology. People complain about the YouTube algorithm but it's actually pretty good most of the time, I think.
Sometimes it's pretty great and pops a video with only a few views into my feed that totally fits my interests. Sometimes my entire feed is Kitchen Nightmares episodes because I happened to watch one or two yesterday.
Agreed, it always seemed a little crazy that you could make wild amounts of money to just write software. I think the music is finally stopping and we'll all have to go back to actually knowing how to do something useful.
Melodramatic slop from the original edgy school shooter. There are plenty of technologies that increase freedom. For example, I am substantially more free to not die of smallpox, which would have been quite limiting to my options.
> Melodramatic slop from the original edgy school shooter.
This is a very arrogant, judgemental, dismissive comment that adds nothing to the conversation.
It is also a textbook example of ad hominem. “Why are you paying attention to what that guy said?”
> There are plenty of technologies that increase freedom. […For example. Smallpox vaccine…]
If you think that Kacynski or OP were talking about all technologies then you lack reading comprehension. Since they’re not making the assertion about all technologies, holding up a specific technology as being good does not address the point that was being made.
> from the original edgy school shooter.
Regardless of your views on Kacynski, he is a philosopher of note. His work is regularly quoted and referred to 30 years later. As opposed to, say, Bin Laden’s manifesto.
> Melodramatic slop
It’s ironic that you chose this phrasing, when “slop” has come to mean “low effort, low quality content pushed out without much thought”.
How humiliating for you, to put your foot in the mouth in front of everyone in this distinguished forum. This isn’t Digg, or even Reddit. Put some thought into what you write.
First: Much of your post is against site guidelines. You should perhaps re-read them.
Second: My opinion of Kaczynski is colored by having met one of his bombing victims, both before and after.
More generally, he is philosophizing about what is good for society. That is, he's making claims about what is moral. But his actions show that his moral compass is hopelessly skewed. So why am I going to take his judgment on moral questions? I'm not. As a philosopher on moral questions, his actions destroy his credibility.
His ideas may sound credible. If that's where they led him, though, no, I don't want to start down the road of his ideas.
>How humiliating for you, to put your foot in the mouth in front of everyone in this distinguished forum. This isn’t Digg, or even Reddit. Put some thought into what you write.
This is the justification for the killings (Paragraph 96) in case you are curious:
96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.
Given how many impactful books I've read by both small and large authors, even before the age of the internet, I'd say this murderous fuckwit was simply justifying murder.
This does not justify murder. Had his moronic ramblings been worth the paper it was printed on, the murders would not be necessary to spread it.
I'm almost as interested in debating this as I would be debating the livejournal girls who worshipped manson. It's the same thing. The guy was a gutless stinking murderer who was so afraid of debating his ideas on the merits that he spent his life shitting himself in a shack tying barbwire across bike trails to decapitate kids he didn't like and mailing innocent people instruments of death, torture, and terror. He was one of the more worthless and useless people to live in recent memory, and that's quite a list.
What would debating the ideas do? You either get it or you don't. There is a large sum of people who are categoricially indifferent to the idea of debate. They just support the status quo blindly, no matter what.
For example, you haven't even read the first sentence of the relevant material and you are already in a soylent-driven tizzy making lists of synonyms and debating whether we should even be allowed to debate.
Any troll or shitposter who can't operate extremely effectively on HN isn't very good at it.
The site basically has a house style for those activities, and you can go crazy insulting and stirring people up all day long and not get moderated for it, as long as you stick to the approved style. Bonus: if you're not just half-competent, but actually good, you can probably get people calling you out on your behavior moderated, if they don't beat around the bush about it in just the right ways! That's why the majority of posts on here are trolling and shitposting, or fallout thereof.
If you stay under the moderation radar, trolling this place is like shooting fish in a barrel, even easier than most sites (no, I've not done it, but it's very obviously most of what goes on here). If the site cared about this, it'd have ignore-lists.
Right that's why everyone here still acts like redditors that don't read headlines, downvote without explanation, have massively long threads arguing without listening to each other, spam for self promotion...
That sounds like a distinction without a difference. The point of the guidelines isn’t about the specific words chosen; it’s about making meta-complaints about HN itself.
That's a spicy meatball. And also very stupid, but I admire the lack of foresight it takes to advocate for insider trading. What's your next hot take? Can i suggest 'Epstein did nothing wrong'?
the OP isn't wrong about insider trading - it's just that it lacked the crucial bit about being _transparent_ about insider trading.
Current insider trading laws are about _preventing_ it (but it still happens). This makes it so that insiders who do trade and get away with it make bank, but this does little to benefit the over all market information equilibrium.
What needs to make insider trading "good" (instead of bad), is to make the insider's trades 100% transparent and instant (instead of the months of SEC filing currently needed before it becomes public info). Doing this will ensure that insider's trades immediately gets reflected and copied/arbitraged against, and will allow the price of a stock to reflect information not yet released but is acted upon by insiders.
Insider trading is already perfectly legal (by US law), if you do it with consent of your company. So the rules are not about protecting the public at all.
That isn’t true at all. You need to take your insider trading again (every bigcorp makes you do it) and learn what insider trading actually is, and why it is illegal, and why you’ll probably get caught. I’ve heard too many sad stories where immigrants from a country with looser laws came to the USA for very high paying tech jobs, and throw them away for just $100k of insider trading gains.
The company is allowed to trade on their insider information. That's perfectly normal and legal.
When Warren Buffett decides that he wants to buy stock in a company, he knows that if this became public, the target company's stock would go up. Nevertheless, he's allowed to trade on this insider information (about himself!) without informing the general public first.
> You need to take your insider trading again (every bigcorp makes you do it) and learn what insider trading actually is, and why it is illegal, and why you’ll probably get caught. I’ve heard too many sad stories where immigrants from a country with looser laws came to the USA for very high paying tech jobs, and throw them away for just $100k of insider trading gains.
That's true but also entirely irrelevant to my point: in these cases the company does not consent to the employee using the information. And, yes, that's illegal.
Insider trading law in the US is about breaching fiduciary duty. If the company consents, there's no fiduciary duty that was broken. (But the conditions are more complicated. So let's go with the simpler example of a company trading on its own secret, insider information.
It's a fun little legal Gedankenexperiment to craft the conditions that make what would otherwise be insider trading legal in the US. But as you suggest, it's not very relevant in practice, because they all require the company's consent, which you normally don't get. Matt Levine sometimes likes to write about these sorts of things in his 'Money Stuff' newsletter.)
Insider trading consists of an individual who is an insider to a company that is publicly traded, trading stock in that company on information they obtained as an insider.
> When Warren Buffett decides that he wants to buy stock in a company, he knows that if this became public, the target company's stock would go up.
Warren Buffett is not a publicly traded company, and in this hypothetical he is buying stock in another company, which (by assumption) he has no insider information about.
> Insider trading law in the US is about breaching fiduciary duty.
This is false. It's about protecting traders. This is why it applies specifically to publicly traded companies. If it was about protecting shareholders (from what?) then it would apply to all companies.
> Insider trading consists of an individual who is an insider to a company that is publicly traded, trading stock in that company on information they obtained as an insider.
No, that's not true in US law. It doesn't have to be the stock of the company you work for to get you into insider trading trouble.
> Warren Buffett is not a publicly traded company, and in this hypothetical he is buying stock in another company, which (by assumption) he has no insider information about.
Well, that's why your definition is wrong.
> If it was about protecting shareholders (from what?) then it would apply to all companies.
Huh, what? You don't have a fiduciary duty to people you don't work for.
> The rationale for this prohibition of insider trading differs between countries and regions. Some view it as unfair to other investors in the market who do not have access to the information, as the investor with inside information can potentially make larger profits than an investor without such information.[2] However, insider trading is also prohibited to prevent the directors of a company (the insiders) from abusing a company's confidential information for the directors' personal gain.
Clearly not true. In 2020, the SEC fined Andeavor for buying back its own stock while negotiating a potential merger. The duty is to affected shareholders and the integrity of the market, not the company.
Don't know how you got this from Matt Levine. Isn't his catchphrase "Everything is securities fraud"?
> Clearly not true. In 2020, the SEC fined Andeavor for buying back its own stock while negotiating a potential merger. The duty is to affected shareholders and the integrity of the market, not the company.
No, no, you can still construct scenarios where it's legal. But yes, buybacks are especially heavily regulated. And yes, you have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. (But not to the 'integrity of the market'. There might be some duties and vague laws there, but it's not a fiduciary duty.)
In any case, what specifically are you referring to that's "clearly not true" in my comment? I constructed some examples that deliberately avoid a company (or an employee of said company) buying their own stock.
> Don't know how you got this from Matt Levine. Isn't his catchphrase "Everything is securities fraud"?
He has more than one catch phrase. The relevant one here is that insider trading in American law is about misappropriating information and fiduciary duty. Which he contrasts to French law amongst others, which is about fairness and a level playing field.
However, regulators in the US often want to spin the rules to be about fairness, but courts so far mostly disagree.
One example he brought up was: suppose you work for Bank X and you take the train in the morning to work. You overhear an employee of Bank Y talking about some deal on the phone (and that other guy doesn't notice you). You have no fiduciary duty to Bank Y.
By French law, you couldn't trade on the information you gained.
But by American (and UK law, where the example was from) your fiduciary duty to your employer, Bank X, might even compel you to use the information to their advantage. Especially if you were on company time when you overheard the conversation.
The company ultimately being the shareholders. Hard to imagine a scenario where allowing an employee to trade on insider information would benefit the shareholders.
Any dollar you get paid as salary is a dollar less for the shareholders. Yet, paying people dollars is still a common practice.
Paying people in secrets isn't different in principle, only in degree.
However I agree that the scenarios where this would be useful to shareholders would be a bit weird, but it's just a Gedankenexperiment where we assume that for some reason the shareholders already think this is a good idea.
It's a made up rule to try and make things fair, which life famously is not. The Middle East financial system has no laws against it, making it a cultural difference.
Epstein is good for the economy because it ensures politicians get goods before they would be considered market ready allowing for policy to be created proactively. /s
reply