Album

Bad mortgages, bad ratings agencies, and definitely bad issuers.

Thanks for rephrasing. The thing is with regulation when there’s a caveat/condition it’s forbidden not just a correctness check. I think the underlying sentiment is correct, a blanket ban on something is surely easier to enforce than a nuanced approach.

But that’s my whole point since the first post. A blanket ban on securitization just locks away the whole tool when really we should just work to implement effective regulation.

The real problem is that law and subsequent regulation lags behind innovation. Like AI or crypto would be an example. So back in 2008 there was a lot of lag on securitization as an innovation. Subsequent to the crisis, in 2025 market reg is well established on securitization products and derivatives.

It’s not semantics when what you’re saying doesn’t make sense and is contradictory to reality.

Actually, I am not sure what issue you’re even raising because of how poorly you communicated.

I thought about not responding at all, tbh, but then thought that it’s clear you think there is a some sort of material difference between regulation and law.

Checking if the illegal thing has been done is often easier than checking if the regulated thing has been done correctly,

pointedly incorrect. and thats my point that checking the illegal thing is the same thing as checking the regulated thing. but you assert there is some difference.

Financial regulations are written in law, and thus illegal to violate.

No that’s a bad analogy because no one is arguing the water should be taken away because of a misguided understanding that it’s inherently dangerous.

The actual analogy is “People have died in water, so no one should swim anymore”

But that’s obviously absurd. You hire life guards, teach people to swim, get a life vest, life savers, etc

It’s the opposite. Regulation assumes business will do anything they think they can get away with if it will make a buck. A lack of regulation assumes companies won’t do those things.

People think “regulators” allowed this to happen, but actually as “regulators” are agencies established by the government that act upon law. At the time of the 2008 financial crash there were limited or few laws (i.e. regulations) on derivatives. It’s law makers that refused to act.

It seems people are largely unaware of the myriad of regulatory changes that came after 2008 and bernie that applied to derivatives and customer/investor protection in general.

The same set of factors that created 2008 is no longer applicable as the environment has changed. There will surely be new regulatory weaknesses that need to be addressed

Didn’t read like that to me initially but if that’s what you meant by it then my bad.

Makes more sense to control the factors that play into the investment risk through regulation instead of shutting down a useful tool for investors.

Or you can just say edgy bullshit.

Securitization is a tool and only part of why the markets collapsed. The reduction of the problem to securitization fails to recognize the bad loans and ineffective ratings given to collateralized securities, and the hidden tranches not disclosed to investors.

If your mortgage/loan market isn’t fraudulent then you don’t have underlying assets with impossibly high risk. If the ratings agencies properly rate securities then investors know what the risk is. And if the government regulates the issuance of these securities through prospectuses (which they do now) then investors will know what’s in them.

So it’s fucked up.

Ok and? It’s clear you don’t even know what your own point is. That’s why you get down voted.

That bothers me almost as much as the lack of respect for human life.

Sounds like work for your therapist.

Personally, I’m not sure what the point of this statement is. It’s not about whether or not it’s right or wrong. Let’s just for the sake of argument, assume that it’s objectively correct. So what? How is saying this, or identifying generically that some people inevitably have their priorities mixed up, a meaningful contribution to the topic?

At best it comes across as cynical. And then you’re thinking “it’s not cynical if it’s true”… But we’re all thinking that it’s cynical because it lacks pointed meaning.

It’s like a teenager got on the Internet, read something, missed the point entirely and instead says “but what about this indirect incorrectness thing that is otherwise unrelated” for no reason other than to be edgy or sound smart.

Ipv6 catching strays

Web browsers for password management is a mistake. You cannot change my mind. It’s one thing to say better then nothing and offer the option, it’s another to say this is the only way.

They estimated it would take to 2028 to overhaul it into a plane as secure as the current AF1. The new AF1 (VC-25B) is expected to be ready 2027.

No one really flies a 747 in a modern world because 4 engines are less efficient than 2 engines…and gas is really expensive so it increases your ticket price inordinately compared to a 777 which can hold less people but get those people there cheaper. Think dollar cost per seat.

You have some 747 cargo jets still which can get away with it due to it still being one of the best for moving a large number of heavy goods.

Basically…it’s a white elephant. Now they own a depreciating asset that they cant get rid of and has a massive upkeep cost or a high cost of fuel.

DJT said it’s the DOD’s…but the DOD doesnt need a 747. Maybe they can make it into a new AF1. Keep in mind the current AF1 looks like a 747 but it’s really a VC-25 - a military variant. There’s already an open contract with Boeing to replace it with the new VC-25b since the current plane is 25-30 years old.

Another buyer, Tovia Goldstein, had a similar opinion of the headset. “After 60 minutes, you can’t, you just have to throw it down. I wouldn’t recommend anyone buying it, unless you’re really rich and you don’t know what to do with your money.”

You need to get your head checked if you didn’t think this was true from day 0.

do you get HP for that

It’s relevant in that it’s entirely misleading. If profits are low they aren’t actually able to just “coast along” making less revenue.

Crowdstrike posted a GAAP Net Loss of 20 million for 2025. So a 30-50M cost savings is the difference in continuing on at all or not. There’s more to it than that, obviously.

Your point is (probably) valid once you fix your words which is what I assume you mean by saying it’s not relevant. But, instead of telling people their rebuttal is irrelevant you should try to adjust your own words to convey your message more accurately.

The quarterly profit motive where CEOs are incentivized through bonus structures to focus on short term profit goals leads to situations where the companies product or service is substandard and they make bad long term decisions that affect the lives of many including their own employees when they over hire and then can no longer afford to pay them.

This email is talking to you as a user of other libraries not yours, not as a server owner.

“Alternatively, server owners can purchase a Plex Pass, which will grant you continued remote streaming of libraries that you have been given access to.”

As communicated previously, Plex pass users also get the benefit of the “Remote watch pass.”

They’re not, and it’s not new (it even says this in the article). They’re the last to report it, its news bait because it’s a hot topic. Now everyones clicked and they got their ad dollars.