Collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX says it has billions of dollars more than it needs to repay customers
Barry Zuckerkorn @ BarryZuckerkorn @beehaw.org Posts 2Comments 190Joined 2 yr. ago
Barry Zuckerkorn @ BarryZuckerkorn @beehaw.org
Posts
2
Comments
190
Joined
2 yr. ago
I'm personally interested in seeing a direct comparison of which air pollutants are released by cooking the exact same dish in induction versus gas. I've seen some small studies analyzing resistive heat versus gas, but nothing that compares the actual high heat cooking discussed in this article.
Anecdotally, I've set off smoke detectors with electric stoves, so obviously the cooking itself can create air pollutants. I'm just interested in seeing that quantified between cooking methods.
The article specifically did ask two other people, who gave more equivocal answers, saying that the flame is part of the answer but that most of it comes from just the high temperature.
Either way, on this particular question, you can visually see the flame ignite the aerosolized droplets. Note that it's not unique to Chinese or wok cooking, as you can see a similar phenomenon with French chefs sauteing mushrooms in butter, where the flame can flare up at the edge of the pan. The taste comes specifically from that flame above the food, not below the pan.
Gas stoves are simply much, much better to cook with than resistive heating electric stoves. You don't need to lie, you just need to try both out and come to that conclusion on your own.
Induction stoves do address almost all of the drawbacks of resistive electric heat, but are significantly more expensive than gas at the entry level: usually about twice as much for the stove/range itself, and then operating costs and maintenance tend to cost more over time. But it also makes certain high end features much more accessible: French cooktop style flexibility, precise temperature control, easier to clean, etc., so high end induction is comparable to high end gas.
Given I’ve been described as a right with conspiracy theorist for saying that capitalist countries experience less starvation than socialist ones, I’m going to have to take this assessment with a grain of salt.
That's not the methodology used, unless your description of starvation literally includes QAnon hashtags:
Tracking commonly used QAnon phrases like "QSentMe," "TheGreatAwakening," and "WWG1WGA" (which stands for "Where We Go One, We Go All"), Newsguard found that these QAnon-related slogans and hashtags have increased a whopping 1,283 percent on X under Musk.
And if not, then I'm not sure what your observations add to the discussion.
I'm too old for school shooter drills, but I'm like basically the perfect age for being terrified of velociraptors after watching Jurassic Park in theaters. Not only do I know how to barricade a door, but I also know how to use mirrors to visually trick people into seeing hallways that aren't there!
One of the worst companies in recent years has been Purdue Pharma, which worked with the also shitty McKinsey to get as many Americans addicted to opioids as possible, and make billions on the epidemic.
Both Purdue and McKinsey were privately held.
Koch industries is also a terrible privately held corporation.
Being public versus private doesn't make a difference, in my opinion.
After being acquired by Google, YouTube got better for years (before getting worse again). Android really improved for a decade or so after getting acquired by Google.
The Next/Apple merger made the merged company way better. Apple probably wouldn't have survived much longer without Next.
I'd argue the Pixar acquisition was still good for a few decades after, and probably made Disney better.
A good merger tends to be forgotten, where the two different parts work together seamlessly to the point that people forget they used to be separately run.
Wouldn't you want to know what these texts are saying?
They aren't saying what you think they are saying.
Can you give an example? This sounds intriguing.
Like many others, I jumped on the sourdough bandwagon in 2020, but fell off sometime during the year after that.
But a friend of mine stuck with it, and expanded into sourdough pizza doughs for NY style or Neapolitan style pizzas in his backyard pizza oven. He had a bunch of us over today, and I don't think I understood everything he was saying (he was doing 60% hydration for 00 flour, but stuff I didn't quite catch about when to knead/rest), but I can say that the pizzas he was making were delicious, and he made it seem so effortless to stretch the dough out to around 14 inch (35cm) diameter. And it was kinda infectious to see his enthusiasm for something he'd been churning away at for the last few years, explaining a bunch of things to a bunch of friends gathered around, and just having a great time on a Sunday afternoon.
So a bunch of us are probably gonna try our hands at the same thing, and form a bit of an amateur pizza group, texting our successes and failures to each other.
Hmm, is this a new take on the "Stop Doing Math" meme?
IT IS SAFER, CHEAPER, AND LESS POLLUTING THAN LITERALLY ANY OTHER OPTION!
It's not cheaper. New nuclear power plants are so expensive to build today that even free fuel and waste disposal doesn't make the entire life cycle cheaper than solar.
It's certainly interesting that people are exploring other options for creating hot dark beverages that taste at least somewhat similar to coffee, but it's also entirely possible that synthesized caffeine makes its way into other beverages entirely. Obviously there's tea as a substitute, but there are also lots of soft drinks and energy drinks with caffeine.
So long as caffeine remains cheap, increasing price of coffee will likely be met with caffeinated substitutes that have nothing to do with the coffee plant.
And the comment-section on those type of post isn't the right place for a "philosophical" discussions that would otherwise be on topic for that sub/community, but exactly align with topic of that post or news article.
Can you explain why you believe this? I've always understood deep dives into the topic or context or general issues raised by an article to be fair game, whether we're talking the comments on the news article itself, a link on Reddit, a link on Hacker News, a link on a vBulletin/phpBB forum, or even old newsgroup/listserv discussions.
Reddit's decision to start allowing "self" posts that were only links back to the comments thread itself (showing just how link-centered the design of reddit originally was, that every post had to have a link to something) came after the discussions around links became robust enough to support comments-first threads.
The only instance I'm aware of where the US military built a specific model meant to be a replica of a real place was the Osama bin Laden compound. Which they did, in fact, raid.
The building of a fake town isn't the unusual part. The building of a replica of a specific place might not even be that unusual, but it is a strong signal that they definitely intend to attack the real world place that is being replicated.
I know, right? I think some of the answers in this thread are wild.
People are allowed to have their own hygiene boundaries, but some of the views in this thread seem fundamentally incompatible with dancing with other people.
If you think that society was friendlier to trans people in 1999 compared to 2024, you are mistaken.
The consumer confidence index has been on a down ward trend over all since an initial jump with vaccine rollouts.
Yes, and partisan affiliation is a big chunk of that shift during late 2020 and early 2021. Republicans went from generally positive to strongly negative when Biden was elected, while Democrats didn't flip as strongly from strongly negative to still pretty negative. You can tie it to vaccines, but, uh, I'm gonna go ahead and point out a more significant shift that happened at the same time.
I don't think the lived economic experiences of Republicans and Democrats of the same income levels are all that different, but the cross tabs in these surveys show very different perceptions.
So I stand by my general view that a lot of the mismatch stems from people's feelings being poorly correlated with even their own experience.
Telling people they should be happier because unemployment is low is an awful political strategy.
I'm not trying to formulate any kind of political strategy. I'm just observing people and trying to explain what I see with a predictive/explanatory model, not formulating some kind of message. And my model is simple: Republicans will never be happy about the economy under a Democratic president, and most of the rest of the sentiment is just driven by gasoline prices, and to a lesser extent, food prices.
nation wide polls and indicators suggest that people are generally unhappy with the economy
The Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey that is basically the standard on this sentiment analysis seems to be heavily correlated with gasoline prices, far more than gasoline prices actually affect the economy.
And consumer sentiment about the economy has been moving upward over the past few months, while gasoline prices have been low. Did anything change between November and now, to bring it to the highest level of the last 3 years? I'd argue the only real change we've seen in the economy over the past few months is low gasoline prices. All the other long term structural things are still present.
The article tries to cite specific metrics to counter the headline metrics, but I'm not sure they paint a picture supporting the author's points.
Those days are long gone. Today’s typical American working household has several earners, sometimes in multiple jobs.
Following the first link shows an article that paints a picture of life being better for dual earner households:
This shift towards a dual-earner model presents challenges like fewer hours for home production, but also benefits like improved work-life balance satisfaction for husbands doing more housework. Personal savings rates have fallen from 15% to 5%, yet 71% of dual-earner families contributed to 401(k) accounts in 2015.
Following the second link shows that multiple jobholders as a percent of the economy has been trending downward for decades, hitting a record low during the height of the pandemic, and climbing back up to around the average for the previous decade.
The article continues:
If one earner loses a job while the others keep theirs, she may leave the workforce for a time; there is the option of making do with less, and for some there is early retirement. She will not, in that case, count as unemployed—however difficult her life. A low jobless rate can mask a great deal of stress in such households.
This is strange, because the hypothetical person in this category would be counted in metrics like U-6, which has also been at near record lows since the pandemic recovery.
The employment-to-population ratio is still a bit below where it was in 2020, and far below where it was in 2000
Well, the percentage of the population over 65 is much, much higher than it was in 2000. If you look at prime age labor force participation, the number is higher than it has been the previous 2 decades before that.
The author should've focused on other metrics (housing prices, food prices) rather than choosing metrics that don't actually support his hypothesis, or metrics that are themselves presented in this context. To that point, he could've expanded on how it is that individuals experienced what he describes as "sawtooth" economic fortunes, rather than just the brief mention he gives them: pandemic era relief actually went to real people, especially households with children.
I mean, I actually like the author. He's shaped a lot of ideas that formed my own political identity and view towards economic issues over the past 25 years. I just think this particular article is a miss.
Yeah, FTX stole customer investments, sold them, then invested that cash in other stuff and hand out cash to executives. Some of it was traced to specific people (including SBF and his parents), and the restructuring officers clawed that back. Some of the investments paid off, some didn't, but the end result was that there was enough to repay people based on what things were worth on the bankruptcy petition date.