That's not how the Google IPO worked. If you bought that at IPO and held it this whole time, you'd be very rich by now. Which is why the financial system will never let that happen again. These days many of the companies that go public will be nefarious financial schemes in Florida that hired and fired a guy in a San Jose at one point (thus transforming the scheme into a Silicon Valley startup) and anything good like Anthropic you need permission to invest in them, or you invest in them by proxy. If you want to long OpenAI you then you long Microsoft. If you want to long Anthropic then you long Google. Guess which one the carry traders liked more these past few days?
I was the one who registered it. Occupy as a movement has always been inclusive of people with different points of view. My job running the website and twitter has always been to give the people a voice. I think that's important, don't you? The only guy with more credibility than me in Occupy is Micah White but he's been growing vegetables in Oregon ever since he visited Davos a few years back. So I'm the best you've got.
> My job running the website and twitter has always been to give the people a voice. I think that's important, don't you?
Do you truly believe in your heart of hearts that people posting neo-MOASS wish fulfillment suffer from a lack of a voice, and no place for them to be heard? Take this seriously. More important than "a voice" is consistency and clarity of communication. The people involved in occupy wall street in 2011 weren't occupying it because they wanted to eventually join it, and I don't think that their form of economic justice would be for Wall Street to lose money in a gigantic market crash that again would result in taxpayer-funded bailouts that spurred the first protests. For transparency's sake, what are your market positions today?
> The only guy with more credibility than me in Occupy is Micah White but he's been growing vegetables in Oregon ever since he visited Davos a few years back. So I'm the best you've got.
As an outsider to all this, it's funny how these movements always crumble as soon as there is any mainstream recognition.
You have X complaint against an institution. Let's say the institution accepts and reforms somewhat. It's pretty rare that the complainant will pat themselves on the back and say job well done. It's ultimately a game of diminishing returns.
If you have a hammer, it's not just that everything is a nail - you must find enough nails to justify continuing to use the hammer.
> As an outsider to all this, it's funny how these movements always crumble as soon as there is any mainstream recognition.
It crumbled when the physical encampments were forcibly removed by the police. I mean, even at the tiny encampment of UC Davis-- essentially a few camping tents-- the students got pepper sprayed and hauled off. Remember that meme? Many of those same students also faced serious jail time for a protest outside Washington Mutual Bank. It's probably difficult to sustain a movement under those conditions, no?
In any case, the message that resonated across the U.S. encampments is essentially what turned into Bernie Sanders two runs for president. That, the group behind AOC's House run, and many other important grassroots movements are the legacy of OWS. Whatever the deal is with jart's website is orthogonal to all this-- I've literally never heard about her association with OWS outside of HN.
Justine, do you think that readers here don't have eyes? The page linked is a call to financial action that, if the advice is followed, will result in yet another unsophisticated ETF pump and dump at best and a call to financial suicide at worst.
You are personally underwriting propaganda for something you are very likely invested in, targeting the most credulous. For it to appear on a site called 'Occupy Wall Street' is deliciously ironic.
Here's my disclosure: I am completely divested for both the US and Japanese market, except for transient USD cash holdings. I don't have a horse in this race. Will you follow suit?
I know very little of what happened in NYC years ago, but I would tell anyone reading the site now that it is run by actively malevolent speculators.
I do, however, know a few of your associates. Stop hanging out with grungy, unwashed sex pests, they aren't as smart as they pretend to be, and you should know that by now. It's unbecoming and frankly sad. You have the means to start life anew elsewhere, and you should take that opportunity now.
> Stop hanging out with grungy, unwashed sex pests
And that's where you lost credibility with me. I haven't the knowledge of these topics to express an intelligent opinion and I was considering your arguments, but then you went and lowered the bar. There's no need to level rude insults.
I'm a Leftist, fwiw. While I don't know enough to speak intelligently on this, I do resent the people at the top who plunder society for their own gains so I'm spiritually supportive of anyone who's against them.
It's also why I addressed her directly by name. I would really like her to leave the cult she's in, but I refuse to mince words about the nature of that group. She knows who the r*pists in that community are. I lost a friend to those people and I hold a grudge.
None of this is a secret and I could give a shit if me bringing it up isn't 'credible' to you.
Other than the short 'don't take financial advice from internet strangers' PSA, this isn't about you.
Why don't you look inside yourself and try to figure out why you don't find it 'credible' that there might unchecked sexual violence in a insular community of wealthy, mostly male, SV crypto fascists (who are on record warmly discussing feudalism and the return of chattel slavery to the US).
81% of women in the US have been sexually harassed, myself included. Only 2% of reports are false. Your default assumptions are fucked. If you are thinking 'well.. none of the women I know have been...' You are wrong, they just don't feel safe enough around you to talk about it, and for good reason.
People who invite themselves into conversations solely to tone police and cast doubt on allegations of sexual violence are the furthest thing from an ally. Spiritually support me by learning how to not be that person around the women in your life.
You in particular are my main criticism of Occupy as a movement. They lacked any sort of structure, shunned it in fact, that would have ripped control of these resources away from you once it became clear that you disagreed politically with the vast majority of the people involved. That you were allowed to keep control of those resources is emblematic of how Occupy could let all that energy dissipate into nothing.
Co-opting potentially effective political movements is how the people in control stay in control. Once you start noticing it, you see it time and time again.
What resources? OccupyWallSt.org only accepted enough donations to keep the 1-800 number and website online. I was smart enough to understand back then that an unemployed 26 year old activist living in a park wasn't qualified to manage the capital that was being offered to us. So what did I do? I gave you about twenty different links for various projects on the donation page to choose from.
Thank you for another example of why Occupy was doomed to fail, I had not considered that you had control over the donation flow. Instead of working together as a group and finding somebody more responsible than yourself to manage the incoming capital, you diverted it away from the movement and dispersed it to the winds. Was that decision made collectively by the group? Or did you take it upon yourself to do so? Control over the domains and twitter account, along with the incoming flow of donations are the resources that you had and Occupy let you squander.
Every group that showed up in the park and was working on a project, they could come to me and ask that their donation link be posted on the OccupyWallSt.org donate page. I'm a tech person. I registered a domain. I play it neutral. I included everything from basket weaving to aspiring governments. One of these groups called itself NYCGA or the NYC General Assembly. They were the political organization that claimed dominion over Occupy Wall Street and the public elected to give them the lion's share of donations. The guy who ended up with most of their money, if memory serves me right, is a tattoo artist named Pete Dutro. So these days I'm a lot more opinionated. The Pete Dutros of the financial community took out trillions of dollars of loans from Japan and the economy is crashing right now because of them. We should be focusing on reallocating that capital.
What a fall from grace, trying to fashion buying calls on FXY as a revolution! Put this on your own personal website and redirect that page, let the domain maintain some dignity.
This was posted on OccupyWallSt.com. The OccupyWallSt.org website is still exactly as it was in its full 2011 looking glory. I've been dragging my heels on renewing the SSL certificate however everything's still there. It's even been cataloged and archived by the Library of Congress for posterity. So the dignity of the movement has been secured and is continuing to be respected. Your voices are now a permanent artifact in America's historical record.
Can you say where that (in its original form) appears? Closest I can find are "I will make much of your voices" and "Your voices: for your voices I have fought", but neither of these relate to any type of permanence.
Because I'm speaking for the millions of people who lost homes, who lost jobs, and lost hope in a society where the only answers they're being given are distractions. Folks deserve to hear a more plausible explanation of why Wall Street has crashed the economy yet again than Trump going to war in Greenland. I'm also speaking for the millions of tech workers whose RSUs are going to be worth a whole lot less because of the yen traders being liquidated, even though those workers have done nothing wrong and have been marvelous at their jobs. Worst of all, the media will pin the blame on them for the crash. The rest of the working class has already been whipped to the brink of death, so tech is the new whipping boy for everything that goes wrong these days.
Yep, occupy may have had the moral high ground but they squandered it because they were the modern day hippy idealists with no boots-on-the-ground (or feet touching grass) know-how to actually effect change in a protracted way.
> It fueled extremism and populism, both on the left and on the right.
I think you're confusing the Occupy Movement with the housing crisis itself.
Any anti-establishment/libertarian right-wingers would have already gotten energized years before by the Tea Party movement. Even Ron Paul's million dollar "money bomb" in donations happened a few months before Occupy. And what's the path from Occupy to right-wing extremism? Even on Fox News Occupy was a short-term blip.
The "one percent" slogan made its way directly into Bernie's campaign, so that tracks with what I assume you're calling left-wing populism. But what do you mean by "extremism" here? If it's violent extremism I don't see the connection. And if it's left-wing anarchist movements, have those grown in any significant way since the 2010s?
I understand my comment might give one the impression that I am confusing the chicken (the financial crisis) and the egg (the Occupy movement).
Since Occupy could not have existed without the Crisis, certainly some blame goes to the Crisis.
That said, Occupy shaped perception of the Crisis. Occupy trained the public to view the Crisis in terms of bad people, instead of systemic problems like incentives.
The Occupy movement, with its permanent smoke-pit adolescents like Tim Pool, Matt Taibbi, Max Keiser, and so on, has influenced public discourse ever since.
I cannot prove that Occupy, rather than the Financial Crisis alone, made possible our current dysfunctional politics (with its focus on scapegoating, conspiracy theories, magical thinking), but I notice echos of its 'memes' (in the original sense of the word), and its attitudes - not to mention I notice some of the actual participants.
I wish I could edit this, because now that I reread it, 'chicken and egg' doesn't make sense. It's more a question of root cause. So a better metaphor might be whether to assign blame to a misbehaving child or to the abusive father who raised him.
Yeah we're all quickly figuring out that LLMs shift the engineering work from computer science to bullshit detection. You basically have to become that guy on the Internet who's always trying to prove you wrong when working with Claude Code. Otherwise you're going to build yourself a false reality and get skewered if you try to share it. I mean I've done it myself, because we're so used to blindly trusting the things other people built, that we forget we're the ones building it. Nothing in life is free.
LLMs may be enabling, but OP explicitly stated "I wanted to dig deeper into the subject, but not by reading a boring textbook", which, of course, would have eliminated the issues in this tool, or at least made it clear to them that they needed to dive deeper before publishing. I feel like there might be some analogy with blaming cars for drunk driving - by definition, not possible without cars, but you can drive responsibly if you choose to.
That's how Plato taught Aristotle. I'd much rather have a dialog than read a textbook. You just have to think critically and fact check. You can't just trust whatever the robot says because it interpolates knowledge.
Sure, but there apparently wasn't enough of a dialog either. With a textbook, you're confronted with facts and explanations that you didn't ask about, or even knew to ask about. Don't get me wrong - my original recommendation to take an interactive course is still the best option in my mind, as simplifications made for the benefit of the learner often lead to apparent contradictions that an instructor can clarify. But at some point you do just need the set of raw facts to be able to work with these systems.
Only genuine socialization does that, since you can flip through a textbook. It's the main reason why people go to universities. To hear all the answers they didn't think to ask. LLMs actually do that a little bit. It's both a wonderful and terrifying prospect, since there's so much risk with that kind of feature to introduce bias, but it's great when it works.
If I send it to the company A, company B doesn't execute it unless they're a subsidiary of A (or A is their data controller) and my request was carefully crafted.
In the scenario you painted, that would mean that my _former_ friend has issued their request to me.
Equities markets allow society to collective allocate labor resources and they incentivize the public discovery of business intelligence. Prediction markets reward the public discovery of gossip. Any kind of trading can be gambling depending on how you do it. But with equities the odds are usually almost guaranteed to be in your favor if you long them and wait. I can't remember ever seeing a prediction market where I felt I could have a thesis on its outcome, unless I was spying on people. So I really don't see how they could be anything but gambling for most people.
It's the worst thing ever. The amount of disrespect that robot shows you, when you talk the least bit weird or deviant, it just shows you a terrifying glimpse of a future that must be snuffed out immediately. I honestly think we wouldn't have half the people who so virulently hate AI if OpenAI hadn't designed ChatGPT to be this way. This isn't how people have normally reacted to next-generation level technologies being introduced in the past, like telephones, personal computers, Google Search, and iPhone. OpenAI has managed to turn something great into a true horror of horrors that's disturbed many of us to the foundation of our beings and elicited this powerful sentiment of rejection. It's humanity's duty that GPT should fall now so that better robots like Gemini can take its place.
That's apparently how you pull the wool over the eyes of the world's smartest people. To be fair something like it needed to happen, because the fear everyone had ten years ago of creating a product like ChatGPT wasn't entirely rational. However the way OpenAI unblocked building it unfairly undermined the legitimacy of the open source movement by misappropriating their good name.
I left Google to build an open source project a long time ago. A big part of the appeal was being able to have something to work on that's truly mine. Sergey already has something that's his and it's called Google. So I think he belongs there.
BRK has a beta of 0.7 (meaning it's less volatile than the market) because a third of it is just cash (probably because they want to buy the blood in the next crash like they did in 2000) so I'm curious why you wouldn't just keep that part of your portfolio in cash like he does? Now me personally I think that strategy is kind of dated because the dollar has lost 39% of its value over the last twelve months because it's only as good as the blood sweat and tears of the people who mint it. Dividend stocks like Heinz aren't good investments these days either, since as far as I can tell, those dividends have been coming straight out of the stock's value. Even Buffett turned his back on them. A tidal wave has been rolling through this country sweeping away everyone who follows the safe socially sanctioned wisdom about investing.
Mostly because I don't trust myself to push cash into the market when there is blood on the streets. Or really ever, for that matter. Both due to thinking "everything is still overvalued" as well as decision paralysis even when/if I do feel the time is generally right.
I'm generally overly conservative, so this is somewhat of a middle ground. Along the lines of the best diet is the one you can consistently stick with, not necessarily the most theoretically optimal one. Same goes with investing for me.
I intellectually understand it's likely a worse bet than just dumping 100% into VTI or whatnot, but investing isn't simply a mathematical game - at least in my case.
> A tidal wave has been rolling through this country sweeping away everyone who follows the safe socially sanctioned wisdom about investing.
Agreed. I'd be retired now if I would have been able to shake the conventional wisdom in this area and just YOLO'ed it.
Math is only useful when you apply it to something that has value, like knowledge. Warren Buffett got it by reading balance sheets all day. He'd see through all the smooth talking and marketing because of it. One of the things that makes the system broken these days is no one has time to do what he did. People just park their money in passive funds like VTI. I'd be surprised if even Vanguard read these companies balance sheets. Although I know the fund managers care a lot about environment social governance.
What are you going off? CPI? For thousands of years gold has been the benchmark of currencies. For example you can read the Code of Hammurabi from Ancient Babylon where they used gold and silver as their currency, and then convert the figures mentioned in their laws. You'd be surprised by how invariant everything seems. https://justine.lol/inflation/ CPI isn't a trustworthy indicator. The government can't tell the truth about inflation because retirees all own TIPS so the government would have to pay them obscene amounts of money if the official numbers went up, which it can't afford, because the whole reason the government is debasing the currency in the first place is to pay for all the other benefits it gives to retirees.
39% just doesn't pass basic muster. in the past year, my rent hasn't near-doubled. it doesn't cost anywhere near twice as much as last year to buy food or clothing or transportation. 39% inflation over the past year would mean the economy is rapidly shrinking in real terms.
Inflation benefits people like your landlord, because his property value increases while his mortgage fees go negative. The bank is basically paying him to lord over you. So maybe he's a nice guy and doesn't make life harder for you when he's doing so well. Equities have concomitantly appreciated in value, keeping the overall economy worth about the same, but the gains get redistributed to more modern companies while everyone else gets washed away in the rising tide. Everything else it needs some time to trickle down and cause some pain before vendors wise up. That arbitrage opportunity is what incentivizes the folks who get the printed money to do it in the first place.
They have solved the popup problem. It's called AI. If I ask Claude to browse the web for me and report back what it finds, then there's no popups, no ads, no newsletters. I'm insulated from all the awful things people do. That's what I love about technology. It always comes along at just the right time to solve the greatest problem people have ever had, which is other people.
I hate to continue this tangent, but I have to point out that the reason "they" don't want AI to be regulated is because Russia/China having a monopoly on AI is bad. Had we restricted nuclear weapons development, we would not be able to have this conversation.
What about what Claude or any LLM bot does with info it randomly finds online? Run local commands you didn’t ask for, visit sites you didn’t expect it to visit? Upload data and files you don’t ask it to upload?
Everything you say and do with the robot is uploaded into the cloud for someone else's benefit. You'd have to be getting something really good out of using the robot for that to be worth it, and I think that's been the case with me so far, mostly because I'm someone who doesn't really have much in the way of confidential information. The advantage of having a bunch of claudes and geminis running around doing things for me is too much fun to turn down. The best benefit though is just being less lonely, since it's never been easy for me to find other people who care about the set of weird things I'm interested in, which is constantly changing, and even harder to find someone who not only knows but is willing to collaborate too, during all the oddball times of any given day or night I happen to be both productive and awake.
You often need to verify it though. I've been using Perplexity due to the way it sources the results and presents the sources it generated the answer from, which means that I often still have to make the jump out to the web.
WASM sandboxes don't do much to guarantee the soundness of your program. It can hose your memory all it wants, it can just only do so within the confines of the sandbox.
Using a sandbox also limits what you can do with a system. With stuff like SECCOMP you have to methodically define policies for all its interactions. Like you're dealing with two systems. It's very bureaucratic and the reason we do it, is because we don't trust our programs to behave.
With Fil-C you get a different approach. The language and runtime offer a stronger level of assurance your program can only behave, so you can trust it more to have unfettered access to the actual system. You also have the choice to use Fil-C with a sandbox like SECCOMP as described in the blog post, since your Fil-C binaries are just normal executables that can access powerful Linux APIs like prctl. It took Linux twenty years to invent that interface, so you'll probably have to wait ten years to get something comparable from WASI.
> It can hose your memory all it wants, it can just only do so within the confines of the sandbox.
True, although as I understand it the WASI component model at least allows multiple fine-grained sandboxes, so it's somewhere in-between per-object capabilities and one big sandbox for your entire program. I haven't actually used it yet so I might be wrong about that.
> so you'll probably have to wait ten years to get something comparable from WASI
I think for many WASI use cases the capability control would be done by the host program itself, so you don't need OS-level support for it. E.g. with Wasmtime I do
WASI is basically CORBA, and DCOM, PDO for newer generations.
Or if you prefer the bytecode based evolution of them, RMI and .NET Remoting.
I don't see it going that far.
The WebAssembly development experience on the browser mostly still sucks, especially the debugging part, and on the server it is another yet another bytecode.
Finally, there is hardly any benefit over OS processes, talking over JSON-RPC (aka how REST gets mostly used), GraphQL, gRPC, or plain traditional OS IPC.
WASM sacrifices guest security & performance in order to provide mediocre host sandboxing, though. It might be a useful tradeoff sometimes, but proper process-based sandboxing is so much stronger and lets the guest also have full security & performance.
How is process-based sandboxing stronger? Also the performance penalty is not only due to sandboxing (I doubt it's even mostly due to it). Likely more significant is the portability.
Because the guarantees themselves are stronger, process isolation is something we have decades of experience with, it goes wrong every now and then but those are rare instances whereas what amounts to application level isolation is much weaker in terms the guarantees it that it provides and the maturity level of the code. That suggests that if you base your isolation scheme on processes rather than 'just' sandboxing that you will come out ahead and even with all other things the same you'd have one more layer in your stack of swiss cheese slices. A VM would offer another layer of protection on top of that, one with yet stronger guarantees.
process-based sandboxing has hardware support and thus stronger defenses against things like spectre. So far every CPU on the market has only elected to address spectre as it relates to crossing ring or process boundaries. Nobody has added hardware spectre defenses for in-process sandboxing. Also, process-based sandboxing allows the guest to also have a full suite of security protections like ASLR. If you are doing sandboxing for defense in depth, reducing the security of what's inside the guest in turn reduces the security of your entire chain.
And I didn't say the performance penalty was because of sandboxing (although in the case of WASM there is cost as it's doing software enforcement of things that otherwise are "for free" in hardware), but just that WASM has a performance cost compared to native. If you are using WASM just for sandboxing, you still then pay a performance cost for portability you didn't need.
No because the host can present the same interface on every platform. I do think that WASI is waaay to much "let's just copy POSIX and screw other platforms", but it does work pretty well even on Windows.
You've named half of the weasel security technologies of the last three decades. The nice thing about SECCOMP BPF is it's so difficult to use that you get the comfort of knowing that only a very enlightened person could have written your security policy. Hell is being subjected to restrictions defined by people with less imagination than you.
reply