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.

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.

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.

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.”

Your water heater is set too hot or you don’t have a mixing valve after your water heater

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.

This is not new.

Yep instead of lowering rent because your unit is unaffordable you just buy up and rent them all out creating housing scarcity and prices will increase right up until the point ppl can’t afford to vacation anymore… Which is pretty much now anyway. Queue up all the BS stories. “Millennials/zoomers don’t ‘want’ to vacation anymore”

The Snake is going to eat it’s tail.

Yet another excuse to keep checking our phones.

What? You think Google cares to wait 3 days to make you check your phone? No if that was their objective you’d be checking earlier.

The point here is to keep encryption keys out of memory on a device you haven’t used so that someone with physical access to your phone can’t pull the keys.

“Left unity” IS the psy-op. The notion that leftism is some sort of singular concept that is harmonious with all forms of itself. What a great manipulation. There are good ways to do leftism and bad ways. Anyone who tells you different is intentionally trying to create divisiveness of the known differences in approaches to leftism to agitate leftists and gaslight them into thinking there is an ideal and that the ideal is only achievable if they all somehow agree. But as they never will as this doesn’t make sense, these contradictions positioned as truths are the manipulation used to destabilize any movements. For any success of movement leftists will need to agree to disagree or one will have to over power the other.