I'm not normally one to miss the sarcastic or satirical posts, but this one seems oddly earnest.

Cloud providers would be taking way less risk interacting with their own services than a broker does interacting with the market. Perhaps they would be more at risk from bad actors, but it shouldn't be significant: they could reserve this behaviour for people who have already spent, say, $100 with them so you can't abuse it at scale.

A respectable software provider should warn you about this kind of behaviour at install time, and give you the opportunity to opt out. Gas Town fulfilled all its obligations in this regard with these (and other) warnings in the original announcement:

> WARNING DANGER CAUTION

> GET THE F** OUT

> YOU WILL DIE

https://spiegl.org/unsorted/unsorted.html

A buddy from out of town, or a losing regular, or a poker player who the casino doesn't care if they win. In Vegas some casinos' chips are negotiable, officially or unofficially, in other casinos.

It was suspended for the last 15 years! Surely it was easier to leave it suspended and unsuspending it is a conscious choice.

The article isn't a great source, agreed. But it does give this calculation:

> Oddly enough, had SpaceX entered the Nasdaq-100 with a market capitalization of $1.75 trillion on Friday, March 27 [assuming the new rules (?)], it would have supplanted Tesla as the fifth-largest holding in the benchmark. The electric vehicle stock accounts for 3.8% of the Invesco ETFs.

So it would come in somewhere above 3.8%, by those calculations. And it depends on market prices from day to day. Not much changes about the argument above if you make it 3% or 6%, holding constant the assumption that it's 30% overvalued.

Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2].

If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your investment. Assuming you're saving for retirement in 30 years time, the fees will cost you 15% or more.

Maybe your fund manager finds a Spacex-level mispricing every two years. In that case, they're worth the fees. Some people will tell you nobody can beat the market. My employer among others believes very strongly in the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. What is certainly true is that not everyone does.

[0] https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-e...

[1] https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html

[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-cou...

It doesn't take extreme memory on your friend's part either if you keep falling for the same trick. It would take extreme memory for him to have something prepared against every plausible option you could choose.

I've never had to connect to PostGres in an adversarial environment. I've been at work or at home and I connected to PostGres instances owned by me or my employer. If I tried to connect to my work instance from a coffee shop, the first thing I'd do would be to log in to a VPN. That's your multiplexed protocol layer right there: the security happens at the network layer and your cancel happens at the application layer.

This is a different situation from websites. I connect to websites owned by third parties all the time, and I want my communication there to be encrypted at the application layer.

Maybe returnInfinity already spends 12 hours a day in Ubers, or otherwise has them satisfy all his transportation needs, and couldn't usefully double his usage of them.

Of course it's possible to train on a real ship. But the sailors who trained on models have certain specific experience that you will hope never to get. As for the things you experienced and they didn't, they can catch up with those during their first year on a real ship.

> Here, you asked R0, R2 and R3 to abstain from casting further votes in the first three columns, signified by black x.

If I can ask them to do that, and rely on them to go along with what I ask - why not skip all the middle steps and ask them all to vote for red?

If X then Y, sure. While X, do Y? Maybe. For X equals Y, X equals Z, X is incremented, do A? Hardly. Match X case Y1 Z1 case Y2 Z2? Definitely not

Native English speakers have a small leg up understanding the vocabulary, not the syntax.