Freedom and liberty should be the foundations of a healthy society. Democracy should be reserved only for those things that must be decided collectively and universally enforced.

What kids do on their phones doesn't even come close. Let parents and vendors decide what their kids and customers can do. I've met plenty of well-adjusted kids who aren't on social media because their parents don't let them.

By creating prediction markets with points rather than dollars, Meta probably avoids a lot of the legal issues current prediction markets are facing. But it also loses the one real value of prediction markets: when people put their own real money at stake, their decisions should be based more on actual knowledge and estimation than wishful thinking.

So what use is a prediction market of points for anyone?

The realtor cartel still enforced a 6% commission, with half to the seller's agent and half to the buyer's agent. Our contract with the buyer's agent refunded half of his commission to us. So basically we got a 1.5% home discount. Our buyer's agent still made 1.5% but didn't have to babysit us while traipsing through dozens of potential homes, so it feels like everyone wins.

I've often heard of house painting as an example of this. It used to take a crew of 8 with buckets, paintbrushes, and ladders to repaint a house. Then paint rollers came along and it got easier. Then sprayers came along and it got even easier. Costs fell, so now people want their houses painted far more often. Landlords now nearly always fully repaint apartments between tenants. As cost fell, painting demand rose.

And just to be clear, that's a maximum of one right in this situation.

The FDA statement makes this sound like something we all should be pleased with. Somehow this 19,000-person bureaucracy is popular on Hacker News, but I like to remind people that the FDA's primary job is to prevent Americans from buying medicines.

A more accurate summary might be something like:

> After many decades of successfully preventing Americans from buying the same safe and effective bemotrizinol sunscreen that the rest of world has had for years, today the FDA finally relented and stopped blocking Americans from buying it.

It seems obvious in retrospect, but the fact that SpaceX will be "valued" at $1.75 trillion after the IPO is irrelevant when only $75 billion worth of its stock will be publicly traded.

$75 billion in float-adjusted market cap puts it around 180-190th in the S&P 500. So sure, it will likely get in there eventually, but there's no rush to bend the rules to get it in right away.

A friend gave AI access to his accounts to summarize his finances.

On reviewing the AI-generated report, he spotted a $500 monthly loan payment that he didn't recognize. He asked AI where it came from, and AI admitted that it was a mistake.

Perhaps in its training data, most people have a $500 loan payment, so AI just stuck one in there.

Getting the pope involved makes it all seem more mystical and magical than it is. And these remarks only further feed that delusion. Regardless of intent, it seems to just feed the AI marketing and hype.

The article title seems like click bait, even though the article content goes on to have interesting details about EU attempts to reduce dependence on US technology companies.

Absolutely true, but ignorant stock traders making irrational trades only matters if company management pays attention to them. Musk will maintain complete control of SpaceX even after the IPO, so he can focus on long-term value rather than short-term ups and downs.

Of course, over time, if more shares are issued, this may change.

"Property" was chosen specifically as a bait and switch. It tries to get people to take a concept that has been understood for thousands of years for physical objects, and apply it to this novel century-or-two long experiment for encouraging the production of easily-copyable things.

That's not a feeling, for journalism anyway it's an explicit fact. The Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) - the primary agency that reviews and accredits journalism programs across the United States and whose mandates directly shape the curricula of over 100 universities - has changed their standards over the years away from emphasis on truth and towards emphasis on advocating change to institute certain policies. See https://www.acejmc.org/about/strategic-plan . They still mention truth, but almost tangentially among long lists of outcomes that journalists must pursue. The current generation of journalists were trained by these principles.

The Associated Press (AP) StyleBook https://www.apstylebook.com/ similarly polices the language that journalists use to favor certain policy outcomes, with some news organizations requiring compliance as a condition of employment.

Does it also insert "please like & subscribe?"

> there's basically no reason to create this photo other than to mislead the authorities

There are many other "for fun" possibilities: impress his friends, impress internet followers, impress a girl, play around with AI...

They've charged him with "disrupting government work by deception." It will be interesting to see whether that South Korean law requires proof of intent or just proof of the consequences. If he directed to authorities, he's in trouble, but if he posted it anywhere else it likely qualifies as free speech.

One was for a company that survives by selling ads - basically this was an ad selling ads! Given the title of the podcast, I assumed this was some sort of meta-joke, but evidently not.

So the sponsors of this podcast apparently believe that internet advertising works.