• 11 Posts
  • 236 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 12th, 2025

help-circle


  • A few years ago, I set my mind to understanding stock market investing. It had always looked intimidating, but I have a couple of degrees that required me to pass chemistry, physics, and engineering courses - I figured I could learn if I put my mind to it.

    What I discovered was that the stock market is mainly hype. For all the formulae and Greek letters that look complex and deter the general public, the emperor is really wearing no clothes.

    Stock prices rarely follow fundamental analysis of value, and rather mostly pre-empt news cycles due to insider trading. And technical analysis seems to be a bunch of fortune tellers who think they have discovered Newtonian calculus by drawing tangent lines off cherry picked data.

    Furthermore, the entire system supports the enshittification of our economy. When a company is supposed to make MORE profit every quarter rather than just maintain profitability, it leads to lower quality goods and services and worsening work conditions.








  • NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.catoScience Memes@mander.xyzUwU🥺👉👈
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think people are taking issue with the way she uses some of the vocabulary to sound better than the dick shower. Now, she probably is better than the dick pic dude, but she is bragging a little by using some niche terminology.

    I have no doubt it is jarring to be a tissue bioengineer and not receive better courtship than a picture of an erect schlong. Where I think she may have offended is when she said the person couldn’t even pronounce saponification.

    In your example, I think a lawyer might be fine in and of itself, but less so if they said “you dummy, you don’t even know what caveat emptor means”

    Regardless, I’m only trying to see the opposing argument. I still would say that most of the fault is on dick pic, but the poster might have been a bit of a terminology-dropper to gain some clout.


  • I don’t think the superpowers ever had an appetite for disarmament. The 1968 non-proliferation treaty was simply to stop MORE nations from acquiring nuclear weapons (in a fairly powerless way). It has always been a “rules for thee, but not for me” concept.

    Russia and the US are patting themselves on the back to limiting themselves to 1500 weapons on the latest START treaty, and there’s really quite little way to prove that’s even true. Neither will give up the right to be the first to fire.

    Even the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons fairly toothless given that only two nations gave up their weapons (South Africa and Kazakhstan - and voluntarily, not via enforcement) and others seem to be funding the weapons-possessing powers in exchange for protection and other benefits.