Right, but Twitter's method of counting the number of daily active users, meaning the number who are seeing ads, which is what the SEC report refers to, was allegedly designed to exclude most bots. Perhaps it's wrong, but they never said 5% of accounts are bots (far more are).
Twitter's SEC filing: "In making this [mDAU] determination, we applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated."
Neither side said bots, but bots _should_ be a subset of "false or spam" accounts. They basically used "our judgement" and give themselves complete discretion. And 5% is a nice round number plucked from nowhere which sounds awesome! Providing proof of that to a Banker or Backer (or Elon or a future Jury) isn't therefore possible or intended. It's marketing spin in an SEC filing.
> but bots _should_ be a subset of "false or spam" accounts
Do you mean "they should report all bots as part of their false or spam accounts number", or that you believe logically bots are in fact a subset of the number twitter reports, and so twitter's number is bogus if 50% of all accounts are bots?
If it's the latter, you're missing the point of their mDAU marketing metric. It already has all the obvious bots and non active accounts removed. They're saying, what % of advertising revenue turns out to be from bots.
If you have proof that twitter is > 50% bots, you should give that evidence to Musk. Or, give it to an attorney that's eager to see Twitter's board go to jail for putting false data in SEC filings.
But Twitter said that the number was provided on a best effort basis, so you don’t need to prove the number was wrong. rather, you need to prove that Twitter tried to lie. Unless there’s an internal email saying “I’m making up the number 5% because we know it’s higher but we don’t want to write that,” it doesn’t matter at all. If such an email existed, Twitter wouldn’t be fighting the back-out because revealing that email would mean damages for existing shareholders.
There was a lot of discussion about boring avatars last week. This project is unique because it presents identicons as unique cartoon characters. Thought it was interesting and could use community love.
This law also means that users will not be ale to repair or modify their electronic devices unless they take them directly to the manufacturer. Small repair shops will be illegal or prone to high fees; only the big manufacturers will be allowed to continue repairs. And if any device has a software lock, for example the 2018 MacBook Pro, it will be illegal to bypass it, and it will require you to go only to apple.
There is a developers guide that shows all the information that is collected [1]. It doesn't look good. There is also full API documentation here which outlines what data is returned [2].
This is a huge problem and most sites that do report the price often report it wrong. If you are interested here is the realtime price segmented via a streaming pool of reputable exchanges that stream their trades directly for tally vs. tickers. So the accuracy is high and by the minute. API is also available. [1]
This isn't accurate. In the Bay Area some cities have decided to run their own public utilities instead of relying on PG&E.
For example, Santa Clara runs their own public utility[2]. The average resident pays about 10.4 cents per KWh. That's about 30 percent less than rates PG&E charges.
Also, their energy is greener and their infrastructure is better maintained.
The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. You can see that played out here [1].
Arguably this is Santa Clara skimming from the system. Carve out a high density environment and let them pay just for themselves and you’re definitely going to come out ahead of trying to electrify rural California.
> The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends.
They aren't incentivised to be excessively lean. The incentive structure for someone who has spent a fortune on expensive capital investment is to maintain it.
There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time.
Anyway, it won't be capitalist incentives at work; it will be something in the details of the regulations. In Australia, due to poor market regulations, we have the opposite problem where our utilities spend far too much on grid maintenance.
That isn't an incentive, that is just greed. And not actual "make the most money" greed, but stupid greed where that is the choice that they would make if they don't think at all and nobody points out the obvious to them.
Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. There is no incentive to do that. They would make more money milking the grid for long-term profits.
Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid.
If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears. But PG&E has been neglecting their infrastructure at least since the early 90s when their lackadaisical approach to clearing brush led to the Sierra Fire in '94.
Keep in mind that PG&E's record keeping was so lax that they blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno after increasing the pressure on a gas pipeline without knowing if the line could support such pressure. Apparently PG&E also got sued a couple years ago by shareholders alleging gross mismanagement and demanding safety reforms. I'd say there's plenty of stupid and greed at PG&E to go around.
> If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears.
'Incompetence' would be the normal choice. And standard run-of-the mill incompetence has nothing to do with profit motives or incentives.
You can get incompetence with any governance structure; it isn't related to profit motives. If they are being sued by their own shareholders that is quite solid evidence that it isn't capitalist incentives that are the problem.
There will never be a singular killer app for crypto. Just like there isn't a killer app for USD or Gold. It is the aggregate adoption, as a transfer of value, across numerous use cases that makes any currency valued.
How about a lower bar, then: has blockchain/crypto tech ever been demonstrated to be economically viable for anything besides a store of value? There has been a ton of hype about e.g. Cryptokitties but it seems to follow a hype and bust cycle every single time.
How about borrowing and lending using MakerDAO and Compound? Or, a decentralized prediction market through Augur? Or, decentralized derivatives through dYdX? Once the Oracle Problem is solved, you'll be able to trustlessly buy synthetic decentralized shares of the S&P500 without using a brokerage. Some people have already done this as a proof of concept.
> How about a lower bar, then: has blockchain/crypto tech ever been demonstrated to be economically viable for anything besides a store of value?
Yes. Sending censorship resistant transactions.
If you look at crypto, you will see that it has, in general, for whatever reason, been censored less often than things like bank or credit card transactions.
The issue isn't the hurricanes or the strength that is associated with them, it is the water content. In the past, hurricanes main threat was the wind. With wind, you can mitigate that with stronger building techniques and since the flooding was minimal, it was easy to recover from.
The new issue with these hurricanes is that they are bringing significantly more water with them because of global warming. The net result is you are seeing once in 1500 year floods happening every year.
It is very hard to recover from those. Especially if you find yourself doing it every year. At some point, you have to move.
The net loss is property and economic activity to name a couple.
> The net result is you are seeing once in 1500 year floods happening every year.
This is the same kind of cherry picking that denialists have been using for decades. Locally rare events appear frequent if you gather trials from enough localities. The fact is that there has been no increase in storm intensity or frequency over the last 100 years which correlates with greenhouse emissions. There was an increase starting in the 1980s [1] but this is simply not enough data for climate prediction, which normally changes on scales of hundreds of years at the quickest - even if you assume that we are expecting catastrophic temperature increase over the span of a century.
Its worrisome that proponent hysteria is driven by the same kind of fallacious reasoning as that of denialist.
I'm not referring to frequency but the water content in each storm. There are a lot of sources, but here is a preliminary data report that was put together by NOAA[1]. There is commentary by scientists at NOAA[2].
Overall this isn't rocket science. You have warmer temperatures over the ocean, which yields more water in the air to get caught up in passing hurricanes. The net result is more rainfall when it hits land. It is what it is.
The abstract of the paper you linked begins with this sentence:
>There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, owing to their large natural variability and the limited period of consistent observations.
Which is exactly what I was pointing out, and exactly what laymen have come to totally disregard in their rush to blame everything on climate change while believing that "this isn't rocket science." Just like denialists and snowy winters, only in reverse.
This is on the scale of rocket science - in fact in some ways it is more difficult than rocket science, because it is fundamentally an empirical and non-experimental science, and it takes decades, if not centuries, to collect enough evidence to refine/reject theory.
