The Burdick case had to do with an individual who had not yet been convicted of anything being offered a pardon in exchange for testimony that could have otherwise incriminated him. The Supreme Court ruled that in that specific scenario someone accepting a pardon could be seen as admitting guilt, so the pardon couldn't be forced on Burdick to strip away his fifth amendment right and compel his testimony.

Ross Ulbricht became a cause celebre among libertarians, but SBF was always genuinely despised by pretty much everyone.

The contents themselves contain a lot of detailed information about the internals of the company including financials, revenue, ownership details etc... those details are what's confidential until the SEC gives its approval, at which point the public can then review the document.

The document itself is what's confidential until the SEC approves it, at which point Anthropic will release that document to the public and IPO.

It's just a standard/template that most companies reuse.

https://www.figma.com/blog/s1-confidential-submission

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gemini-announces-co...

https://investors.navan.com/news-releases/news-release-detai...

https://www.round1-group.co.jp/docs/pdf/2026/20260507_news_e...

If LLMs generated text based on training data frequency they'd likely be some of the most vulgar and hostile things ever created. The internet is full of insults, profanity, and low effort content. The repeated phrases are a side effect of reward optimization rather than some kind of model collapse.

For better or worse (and pretty much for worse), these usages have become AI idioms. Language evolves over time, things that used to be harmless become offensive, certain terms end up taking on the complete opposite meaning than their original meaning, and we are watching certain language patterns and idioms become watermarks for AI and while it sucks, it doesn't make it false.

What matters most in state of the art models isn't simply the final destination, it's the process of how one arrives to that destination.

For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certain narrow circumstances; somehow this is what you find to be unreasonable?

There is just so much wrong with this statement and several others that I don't even know where to begin.

At the end of the day... if you are having fun doing what you're doing, then by all means go for it, my main concern is that people might read what you're saying and actually get misled by it or believe that you're saying something that is true. Your statement seems sophisticated enough that someone could read it, think you have actual knowledge of this topic, and come away with the idea that this is actually a remotely good idea.

For those people... please understand that tombert has no idea what he's talking about, his reasons for what he's doing are not actually because he's trying to save any fees, or because there is anything optimal or rational behind it or he's in anyway outsmarting actual institutional ETFs.

His genuine reason for this appears to be entirely whimsical and for his own amusement and enjoyment, and honestly that is fine, people can do what they want with their own money and there is nothing inherently immoral about this. My main issue is him not being upfront about his actual incentive and instead misleading people into thinking that there is some kind of economic advantage behind this.

Every single time you rebalance your portfolio, you will need to pay short-term capital gains taxes on any gains, as opposed to an ETF in which you simply pay for the gains when you sell your stock which can be years/decades from now. This alone will reduce your average expected earnings by 20% over a 10 year period eviscerating whatever tiny advantage you think you'll get from saving a few bucks in fees.

Furthermore, assuming you rebalance your portfolio monthly, which is the minimum you need to rebalance in order to remain even somewhat aligned with QQQ, you're basically going to be paying a MINIMUM of 30-40 bucks a month in commissions to Interactive Brokers, or 400 dollars a year. And on top of IBKR's commissions you then need to pay the pass through fees of about 5-10 dollars a month for a total of around 500 bucks a year.

Compare that to QQQ which only costs you 18 dollars a year for every $10000 invested.

I've read some incredibly foolish investment advise on HackerNews, but I think this one just about takes the cake.

The original comment, and many other comments spread across the Internet including yours, are written as if the elites themselves are the ones "advertising" the label of "trickle down economics" as if it's some kind of economic theory they are advocating for. But it's always been a label used by opponents, particularly Democrats to derogate Reagan era policies.