Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Stocks are more fun when they bounce up and down.
My only long term investment is in myself and
I suppose da wife
Same Volatility Tour however lolz..
Very nice. Yeah, all things ai are a work in progress and shakin' out - read this news item this morning you may be interested in and Zab likely:
“We thought we knew who the winners and losers were [in tech],” she told me. “But with AI, we are throwing the dice again”.
She believes she’s watching the AI revolution re-landscape the tech sector, and she wants to dive back in.
That same week I also popped along to Founders Forum, an annual gathering of around 250 high-level entrepreneurs and investors. Some serious money, in other words. It’s a confidential event, but I don’t think I’ll get into too much trouble for saying that much of the chat there was also centred around AI.
A few days after that, a headline in the Financial Times caught my eye. “Most stocks hyped as winners from AI boom have fallen this year,” it read, claiming that more than half of the stocks in Citigroup’s “AI winners basket” had fallen in value in 2024.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nglq80w7eo
I don't like talking about other posters unless in a positive light
No Bull 😁
Sweet dreams 🙂
Are you getting enough sleep? 🙂
Yeah, that hits the nail on the head or where the most value is from Biden and likely Bush and Reagan;
Getting anything through Congress was a masterful achievement
I think this works, bout a prostitute (figurehead type ;);
Always struck me as odd all the blame or credit is applied to one person's name.
As a matter of fact - some say the leader is a figurehead.
Do you think Reagan and Bush Jr. were masterminds?.
US government some say is the biggest organization in the world, doesn't matter - it is bigly.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jan/24/mark-warner/warner-says-us-government-largest-entity-world/
Agree, Pres. would have to sign off on a lot of initiatives but bigger brains created them imho.
Bull was good for that philosophical stuff and frankly, his insults were far more clever ;).
I built a cabin in the Walden Pond spirit for friends and found out the
Gingerbread Methodist Campground architecture was one of the couples roots
http://shelterseeker.blogspot.com/2008/02/thoreaus-little-house-at-walden-pond.html
Tricky riddle for sure - I think I got a small bit:
https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/rage-computer-angry-pissed-off-gif-4514090
Remember in elementary school where there was only one pitcher?. One pitcher for both teams because Yeah, it was softball - the pitch wasn't a part of the competitive aspect of the game. Like a good and non partisan discussion - just set things in motion, get the kids playing. Like in the movie The Judge with R.Duval and R.Downey Jr. at a crescendo moment in their estranged father/son relationship - Duval say's "you're welcome".
Gotta go back for the tunes and droneworks now - Happy Canada Day to all..
https://www.tiktok.com/@pixelatedx0/video/7340605212626865451
Far from a grown up world indeed. I guess people have a lot to be scared about and for some reason vote far right as a result. Here it seems to be an anti vote as far as I can tell as CONservatives don't really have a platform other than reversing what ever Trudeau did/does. Too bad, I was looking forward to the free dental.
B4, here's some irony in Trump's big win this afternoon* - it mean's Biden can go deep into dementia with immunity!
Sorry for the tardy replies or non - got busy (really shouldn't post lol ;);.. also, this board is f'n prolific! and like Biden I can't keep up ;)
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrrv8yg3nvo
The US Supreme Court has said Donald Trump and other former presidents are partially immune from criminal prosecution, in a major legal victory for the Republican White House candidate.
The 6-3 ruling did not outright dismiss an indictment that charges Trump with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, but it did strip away key elements of the case against him.
The justices found that a president has immunity for "official acts", but is not immune for "unofficial acts", and referred the matter back to a trial judge.
The three liberal justices dissented strongly, expressing “fear for our democracy”.
“The President is now a king above the law,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The decision makes it less likely that the Republican candidate will stand trial in the case before he challenges Democratic President Joe Biden in November's White House election.
It is the first time since the nation's founding that the Supreme Court has declared former presidents can be shielded from criminal charges............ >
The Reckoning of Joe Biden
For the President to insist on remaining the Democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment.
There is an immense bounty of bunk about the wisdom of age available to all of us who require it from time to time, but, as the pitiless Mark Twain put it in his autobiography, “It is sad to go to pieces like this, but we all have to do it.”
On Thursday night, it was Joe Biden’s turn. But, unlike the rest of us, he went to pieces on CNN, in front of tens of millions of his compatriots. At some level, Biden’s supporters were hoping that he would defy the realities of time, the better to puncture the vanities and malevolence of his felonious opponent. And so there was a distinct cruelty to it all, the spectacle of a man of eighty-one, struggling terribly with memory, syntax, nerves, and fragility, his visage slack with the dawning sense that his mind was letting him down and that, as a result, he was letting the country down. It must be said, with fellow-feeling, but it must be said: This was an event that, if unremedied, could bring the country closer to another Trump Presidency and with it a diminishment of liberal democracy.
The question is: What will Joe Biden do about it?
We have long known that Biden, no matter what issue you might take with one policy or another, is no longer a fluid or effective communicator of those policies. Asked about his decline, the Biden communications team and his understandably protective surrogates and advisers would deliver responses to journalists that sounded an awful lot like what we all, sooner or later, tell acquaintances when asked about aging parents: they have good days and bad days. Accurate, perhaps, but discreet and stinting in the details. In Biden’s case, there certainly were times where he could pull off a decent interview or an even better State of the Union. If he worked a shorter day, well, that was forgivable; if he stumbled up the stairs or shuffled from the limo to the plane, a little neuropathy in the feet was nothing compared to F.D.R. in a wheelchair. The prospect of Donald Trump’s return permitted, or demanded, a measure of cognitive dissonance. And wasn’t Trump’s own rhetorical insanity even worse? To say nothing of thirty-four felony convictions, a set of dangerous policy goals, and an undeniably authoritarian personality?
But watching Thursday’s debate, observing Biden wander into senselessness onstage, was an agonizing experience, and it is bound to obliterate forever all those vague and qualified descriptions from White House insiders about good days and bad days. You watched it, and, on the most basic human level, you could only feel pity for the man and, more, fear for the country.
In the aftermath, Jill Biden, who had led her husband off the stage, dismissed the night as an aberration, as did Barack Obama, and a cluster of loyalists. He’d had a “bad debate.” He was sure to get better, grow more agile. Such loyalty can be excused, at least momentarily. They did what they felt they had to do to fend off an immediate implosion of Biden’s campaign, a potentially irreversible cratering of his poll numbers, an evaporation of his fund-raising, and the looming threat of Trump Redux.
But meanwhile the tide is roaring at Biden’s feet. He is increasingly unsteady. It is not just the political class or the commentariat who were unnerved by the debate. Most people with eyes to see were unnerved. At this point, for the Bidens to insist on defying biology, to think that a decent performance at one rally or speech can offset the indelible images of Thursday night, is folly.
Biden has rightly asserted that the voters regard this election not only as a debate about global affairs, the environment, civil rights, women’s rights, and other matters of policy but as a referendum on democracy itself. For him to remain the Democratic candidate, the central actor in that referendum, would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism. To refuse to do so, to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn’t merely risk his legacy—it risks the election and, most important, puts in peril the very issues and principles that Biden has framed as central to his Presidency and essential to the future.
Trump went into the debate with one distinct advantage. No matter how cynical and deceitful he might be, no one expected anything else. His qualities are well known. In contrast, Biden’s voters and potential voters might disagree with him on particular issues—on immigration, on the Middle East, you name it—but they are, at minimum, adamant that he not be a figure of concealment or cynicism. To stay in the race would be pure vanity, uncharacteristic of someone whom most have come to view as decent and devoted to public service. To stay in the race, at this post-debate point, would also suggest that it is impossible to imagine a more vital ticket. In fact, Gretchen Whitmer, Raphael Warnock, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore are just a few of the office-holders in the Party who could energize Democrats and independents, inspire more younger voters, and beat Trump.
So much—perhaps too much—now depends on one man, his family, and his very small inner circle coming to a painful and selfless conclusion. And yet Joe Biden always wanted to be thought of as human, vulnerable, someone like you and me. All of us are like him in at least one way. It is sad to go to pieces like this, but we all have to do it. There is no shame in growing old. There is honor in recognizing the hard demands of the moment. ♦
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-reckoning-of-joe-biden?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Jun 28, 2024 -
Technology
Supreme Court decision can't defrost chilling effect on disinformation research, experts warn
A U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing government officials to speak to social media companies about content moderation doesn't come soon enough to help stop the spread of political disinformation before the November election.
Why it matters: Disinformation campaigns targeting the 2024 U.S. elections are expected to reach further and outnumber what's been seen in past elections, experts warn.
Nation-state hackers are already using AI-enabled tools in their disinformation campaigns, and geopolitical tensions have made Russia and China more invested in November's presidential vote.
Driving the news: The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in Murthy v. Missouri to allow the Biden administration to keep talking to social media platforms about content moderation issues, including foreign influence operations.
The decision concluded a years-long legal battle that at times prohibited certain government agencies from talking with social media companies about these issues.
The big picture: Even with the court's decision, the legal battles have already had a detrimental impact on the broader ecosystem's ability to study and respond to disinformation.
GOP lawmakers used the court case to target disinformation researchers at Stanford University so ferociously that the school appears to have collapsed their program.
Civil society groups have warned that social media companies have pulled back on moderation policies ahead of the 2024 vote that they say are necessary to fight extremism and disinformation online.
And the FBI only recently resumed its outreach to some American tech companies about disinformation after a more than six-month break, NBC News reported.
"We have lost some valuable time that we should have been able to be working in a much more robust manner with the platforms and with state and local election officials," Suzanne Spaulding, a former Department of Homeland Security undersecretary who led the agency that later became the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, told Axios.
Flashback: In 2020, the FBI and CISA both played roles in alerting social media companies to potential mis- and disinformation on their platforms.
CISA ran a "switchboarding" operation in which it relayed reports of online misinformation about the voting process from election officials to social media platforms.
Academic researchers regularly published reports detailing the ways disinformation was spreading online — which the federal government used to help inform its work.
Between the lines: The biggest long-term impact from the Murthy case is the ripple effects it's had on the broader disinformation research community, former CISA director Chris Krebs, who infamously left his role after the 2020 election, told Axios.
Researchers have been the target of House committee inquiries and the "Twitter Files" exposés.
Part of the goal of this research was to figure out who was behind the spread of falsehoods online, how it moved on social channels, and what the life cycle looked like, Krebs added.
"We'll certainly miss it in terms of understanding what's happening in near real time, and we're going to be worse off because of that," he said.
What they're saying: "The networks spreading misleading notions remain stronger than ever, and the networks of researchers and observers who worked to counter them are being dismantled," Renée DiResta, former research director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, wrote in a New York Times' op-ed this week.
The intrigue: CISA had already decided before the Murthy v. Missouri case to end switchboarding during the 2024 election cycle, according to the SCOTUS decision.
What we're watching: Building that muscle memory among social platforms, academics and the federal government wouldn't take that long — it's just a matter of how they choose to do it, Spaulding said.
The University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public — which worked heavily with the Stanford program — also has 20 researchers dedicated to debunking election rumors for 2024.
C'mon guys, this pos is redickulus - and for years.
Is the BBC being lazy calling Barbados part of the Caribbean?
https://www.whereig.com/barbados/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrlk5gp24ro
.. it should be able to get things done - true with majority's, then four or eight years later they get dramatically reversed.
(tax cuts for the rich followed by capital gains tax increases, etc,.. )
Chaos for sure. China get's things done - one party. Israel get's things done 10-15 parties - always in coalition mode.
From 1951 to 2015, elections resulted in at least ten and as many as fifteen parties being represented in the Knesset. Twelve parties were represented in the previous three parliaments using the 2 percent threshold adopted in 2006. With the higher 3.25 threshold in the 2015 elections, ten parties and coalitions (representing a total of 13 parties) qualified for seats. No government has formed without forming a coalition.
https://democracyweb.org/multiparty-system-israel
I'm waiting for the ai program that meshes honey bees with human organization. Still need a military I suppose to keep the Asian Murder Hornets outta town.
Yes,.. good for her..
They do.. maestro like nimble fingers on that bass and drummer intricacies.
Kinda makes me think of the disruptive conniption fits
Caused by Biance to the tightie whitie insecuritie (twi..? lol ;)
Beyoncé laces the song with Southern pride, as she did before on the Lemonade track "Formation." She references her family's roots among Alabama moonshiners and Louisiana Creoles. "If that ain't country," Bey drawls, daring you to disagree, "tell me what is?"
With both subtlety and swagger, Beyoncé positions country music as an offshoot of Black American music, a soulful cousin to gospel and blues. These roots run deep, a shared well of storytelling that's been bubbling away for generations.
The lyrics hit hard:
Used to say I spoke too country
And the rejection came, said I wasn't country 'nough
Said I wouldn't saddle up, but
If that ain't country, tell me what is?
Bey is responding to the criticism she faced for her country-tinged song "Daddy Lessons" on her 2016 album Lemonade. This tension came to a head when Beyoncé performed "Daddy Lessons" at the Country Music Association Awards that same year, alongside the group The Chicks (formerly known as Dixie Chicks). While the performance was a critical success and drew record viewership, there was also backlash from some fans who felt Beyoncé didn't belong in the genre.
"The criticisms I faced when I first entered this genre forced me to propel past the limitations that were put on me," said Beyoncé of Cowboy Carter. "Act ii is a result of challenging myself, and taking my time to bend and blend genres together to create this body of work."
https://www.songfacts.com/facts/beyonce/ameriican-requiem
Thanks for the interesting question. Never really thought about it. (.. but often heard many analysts identify the two party system at the root of many problems). I suppose I live in one (multi-party) tho admittedly dominated by two parties but a recent minority elected gov revealed a coalition of the left and further left which is ok with me. A slow build for Universal Dental Care has begun which is pretty cool - heard it talked about all my life. It was a condition of the further left (NDP) to continue supporting the Libtards. The right however looks poised to clobber both of those lefties with a 20% lead in the polls albeit over a year away election. Green party got one seat once I think.
there should be a few commandments or red lines the two or more parties must sign on to - ethical standardization;
thou shall not be a white supremicist
thou shall not promote lies
thou shall not cheat or gerrymander (keep your SCrOTUmS clean)
etc,...
Comparison with other systems
Two-party systems can be contrasted with:
Multi-party systems. In these, the effective number of parties is greater than two but usually fewer than five; in a two-party system, the effective number of parties is two (according to one analysis, the actual average number of parties varies between 1.7 and 2.1).[32] The parties in a multi-party system can control government separately or as a coalition; in a two-party system, coalition governments rarely form. Nations with multi-party systems include Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Ukraine, Suriname, Sweden and Thailand.
Dominant-party systems are present in countries which are formally democratic, but where a dominant party holds a vast majority for decades and the party institutions may be intertwined with, or hard to distinguish from the major institutions of the state. Unlike in one-party-states, civil rights and freedom of press are at least partly preserved. Examples of this type are the People's Action Party of Singapore, the African National Congress of South Africa, the SWAPO in Namibia, and the Dominica Labour Party in Dominica.
One-party systems happen in nations where no more than one party is codified in law and/or officially recognized, or where alternate parties are restricted by the dominant party which wields power. Examples are rule by the Chinese Communist Party, Workers' Party of Korea, Communist Party of Vietnam, and Communist Party of Cuba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in the United States from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the Constitution, according to several views.[1][33] In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.[1]
Voting ballot.
In a two-party system, voters have mostly two options; in this sample ballot for an election in Summit, New Jersey, voters can choose between a Republican or Democrat, but there are no third party candidates.
Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs
Political scientists such as Maurice Duverger[34] and William H. Riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. Jeffrey D. Sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how the first-past-the-post voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:
The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
—?Sachs, The Price of Civilization, 2011[35]
Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termed proportional representation or more accurately as party-proportional representation. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:
Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.
—?Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes (2008)[1]
......voting system that allows only a single winner......a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. This arrangement strongly favors large and well-organized political parties ..........
Extinction Rebellion - jeu rapid.
F. K.: Hijab is my identity as a muslimah. That’s enough to affirm who I am.
https://rattle.hu/index.php/2017/08/school-revolution-three-girls-from-the-island-of-java/
Didn't take a deep enough breath to be bogged down in partisan bullshit - two party system is broken and takes an honest broker to start there.
Yet the whole thing was simply painful to watch, mostly because it was useless on any practical level. This much ballyhooed confrontation between two political foes for the most important office in the world turned out to be featherlight on substance, policy, interest, intellect, imagination, vision, energy, ideas, humor and hope. It was heavy on one thing (besides cringe), though: ego.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/trump-biden-presidential-debate-responses
Newmed!, nobody's (fuckin) property!..
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz473vr2qvro
I spent all of 1:48 on this band and like em and thought of you for one of your expert analysis
I asked, why do you like em 12?
Hope for future generations where people can get along
sassy, cute and level headed
I like they proudly cover their heads
Cuz the burning eye of God
Would fry one's brain if exposed
(might be why mine is fried - I don't believe in one and won't even wear a ball cap)
I do believe in the rhythms of nature and the chaos of the universe
And by VOB, I think they got it.
Little deeper than that B4.. please listen and learn how to combat those undesirable instincts..
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/our-tribal-future-david-r-samson-1.7237823
Likely lines up well - bitter with his own disappointments looking for blame elsewhere..
Liked that article, will read it again later.
One thought I'm not sure how to characterize;
There was a time, a slow evolution of it where I realized everything seems to have a dark underbelly (for lack of time to think a better phrasing).
U know, your sports hero turned out to be a child molester, polar bears are full of fire retardant, whole milk ain't really that whole, etc,..
I think these things are not so much conspiratorial but part and parcel of a Liberal sadness of awakening to the real world around you.
Gotta go!.. c u
To be a bit fair to the article - it's theme was happiness. Too bad I can't post the whole thing and go line by line lol. Two songs come to mind:
"One distinction that holds true today has persisted for decades. Liberals are sadder than Conservatives. This is a global symptom of political difference, but it is particularly strong in America. Of whatever age group or whatever sex, liberals are also far more likely than Conservatives to report having been diagnosed with a mental illness."
It's real Fuagf - I like talking to you and that you are a liberal but sometimes I get a dissociative pressure up my azz ;)..
Nope. Turning a light hearted throw away convo into the righteous brothers emotional weaponized anecdote is.
".. liberation for women is what I preach preacher man".
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174609168
I asked a bud "did Florida throw that game?" - he said "money talks".
I would like to see an ai generated analysis of Panther body language for that game and make a case for each player
Like you, I am so glad there is more hockey to watch as a result - I can't think of a faster or more exciting sport.
Lol.. ".. just walkin' along mindin' my own business" - can't hide from the world fo sure bro..
Agree Blackhawks, I think the only white supremacists are white supremacists where er they may be found.
The article was food for thought.
Those that don't "have (those) thoughts" - possibly having their collective heads in the sand, good for them and may very well be happier.
Fuck em and may they get off of my cloud,
Actually they are. If you narrow down life experiences in order.. never mind, not here to educate the ______ lol!.
Thanks Duke. I also see it. Good doc bout it below. IPub was my first and only subscribed social media. I didn't know any better and it did and does fuck me up lol.. I only slightly got depressed and suicidal
Depressed there was such a large segment of societal malignity
Suicidal when there there was no hope to the future - ie a future that returns to 1950 (Trigger number for B4 - hey B4! ;)
https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/81254224
.. five high school students with very different personalities spend a Saturday together in detention and find some common ground. The question is, will they remember their time together and act any differently around each other when they return to school and face peer pressure to act their roles..
https://www.songfacts.com/facts/simple-minds/dont-you-forget-about-me
Lol, I don't judge. Let me see if I can find an interesting podcast of those in Trump's sights if re-elected.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/833/come-retribution
Cool Zor - good deep dive. The hockey spirit I related to. Too bad they weren't real.
For sure, but unless there is an obvious agenda (which I don't see) it's a conversation starter. Stress all around one can't argue with.
Yeah, there was some odd lines I couldn't post from the pay wall like:
"It is possible that liberalism does not just correlate with sadness but may exacerbate it. ..noted that educated, affluent white liberals have come to endorse the idea that America is systemically racist, leading them to view other racial and ethnic groups more warmly than their own... this tension - being part of a group that one hates - creates strong dissociative pressures on many white liberals.."
edit
Puts a positive spin on what was always a tasteless joke;
"I'm not prejudice and luv black people - I think everyone should own one"
Lol, good point (or two ;)..