It's not necessarily just for the 2FA snakeoil. The worst places snap on a glove and proctologize your network identity metadata (spilled by all the underlying carriers, IIUC), and sometimes even billing records with your name and address (more vulnerable if you're still on a postpaid). The US desperately needs a port of the EU's GDPR, for starters.

That doesn't account for the growing asymmetry in the CPI. In the CPI, the asset bubble really only shows up as housing and perhaps transportation. Meanwhile consumer goods go down to compensate (as you'd expect from CPI being in the feedback path for the monetary creation "operational amplifier"). So we're left with everyday expenses continuing to be affordable (eg food, toiletries) while life expenses become ever more unaffordable (eg buying a house).

If you want to refute the argument, you have to find a graph of wages normalized in terms of the cost of a starter home in areas with active economies. But I suspect that is going to be hard.

Yes, if you cherry pick a few things that are disproportionately going up in price and say inflation should be calculated based solely on those things then you can make the numbers look worse. Or the reverse if you cherry pick things that are going down in price. I don't think either of those would be a more reasonable approach than looking at CPI.

I mean if those things are housing, medical care, and education that's not really cherry picking at all.

Yes it is. CPI already takes those things into account. If you ignore all other living costs in favor of just looking at those three things because they're the things that are going up the most then you're not getting an accurate measurement of purchasing power.

It's not a "cherry pick" - the critique is specifically about the asset bubble. Owning assets is what it takes to be economically enfranchised in our system. Even though the asset bubble encompasses much more than just housing, I was meeting you halfway by focusing on where the asset bubble connects to the CPI metric. But with this response it seems as if you're intentionally trying to dodge the issue by focusing on the CPI.

I guess I would just disagree and say that having money makes you "economically enfranchised" by definition. That's why I'm talking about CPI.

If you ignore CPI in favor of solely looking at who can afford to buy real estate in big cities ("areas with active economies") then yes, perhaps things have gotten worse, but I'm saying that's the wrong metric to be looking at.

Note that a similar effect has now moved into traditionally consumer markets as well. It started showing at the grassroots with hoarding toilet paper and whatnot during the first Grump catastrophe, but has now solidified with things like completely fucking up the market for computing hardware.

I think I liked it better when the elites mainly conspired while playing mega golf - having that as the social attractor made for a naturally limiting effect on the imaginations of the people poised to do damage. If you would have gone to most coaches of distance-pissing teams (eg Gold Mansacks) in the 90's and asked for trillions of dollars to buy up all the RAM chips, you would have gotten answers on the order of "Kernel who?!". Now they're like "this guy looks like a serious nerd, we better not get left behind!"

Eh, I won't say buying up of commodities to manipulate markets is a new things exactly. Hell, look up the "Onion futures act". I think maybe the change here is a more of an institutional collapse of government entities that would attempt to stop this.

Another new thing is that the disruption is framed in terms of a purportedly productive-investment purpose, getting more people and capital onboard. Also with the coordinated irrationality there is a lot more momentum for priming a pump that will endure long term. Sure we can fantasize that all of these datacenter buildouts will go bust, leading to a glut of RAM and we can party like it's 2001. But does anybody think that will actually happen?

I'd say the real upstream problem is the lack of new "thick" business creation. Which is a tough thing to analyze in terms of semiconductor fabs, as they are notoriously centralized-capital-intensive regardless. So I'm not looking to flesh out that argument in this context, but it does fit the anti-competitive less-efficient market pattern I've noticed across the board.

The main pressure relief valve on the horizon seems to be China building new fabs, but that kind of demonstrates how our own Western-aligned market has eaten itself.

But all you need is a "concrete slab" ! You could even "dry pour" it, since you're going to need a wetdown for the photos anyway.

s/AI/capital/g. In general, but it works really well for that quote.

The problem, as always, isn't the technology. Rather it's how people with power use the technology. Today that technology is"AI". But several decades ago it was the replacement of human judgement with financial modeling and line-goes-up über alles.

(note that even though I'm critiquing "capital" I'm not what you would call an anti-capitalist)

While I agree with you about the pattern of impotent feel-good solutions, let us be clear that urban crime is a municipality, or possibly state-level problem. People turned to Grump because they wanted simple answers to complex problems (validating their own egos), and they doubled down (refusing listen to their fellow citizens) out of pure mass-media-induced spite.

The optics look really bad for the regime. One or two of the remaining hardcore maggots might come to their senses if they see open betting on the lives of American pilots, and at this point the regime needs all the help they can get to maintain legitimacy. Polymarket is a partially regime-owned enterprise and therefore has to work in the interests of the regime. But even putting this aside, any change would be bound to result in more regulatory scrutiny.

You're the one pretending here. The economy is unfortunately designed around most people relying on an income stream that remains at the whims of someone else.

> I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences

nit: this isn't generally a valid analysis. Rather, it's a common refrain used by people undermining freedom of speech while pretending to support it. This trope is often even trotted out in full-powertalk mode where it's applied to consequences coming from the government itself.

You're invoking a common "libertarian" trope, so I'm going to address that larger topic. Right-fundamentalist (ie axiomatic) "libertarianism" is fallacious. Logically, by asserting an unlimited "right" to contract, one can straightforwardly reframe any totalitarian state as merely being contracts between the state and its citizens/subjects/victims. And simply renaming things clearly does not make for a society that respects individual liberty!

The only sensible way to approach libertarianism is to qualitatively evaluate individual liberty. And being prohibited from speaking 8 years after the fact, especially when there is a compelling public interest, is in no way equitable. If they want her continued silence, they should have to buy that on the order of year to year.

Contracts are entered by private individuals, not by the state. So your pithy claim to instantly demolish the idea is not actually effective.

I don't understand your argument. Contracts can generally be entered into by private individuals as well as by legal entities like the state.

If you're making an argument that the right to contract should be unlimited between individuals (and perhaps unlimited between legal entities), but should be limited when made between individuals and artificial legal entities, that would be an interesting framing to explore. But afaik it's not really a popular one.

(although I don't know that such a framework would actually invalidate what I said, especially for autocratic totalitarian states - each citizen of North Korea could just as easily be said to have a contract with Kim Jong Un himself)