(No, this isn't because of your views — we don't care about them and barely know what they are – and yes, we ban accounts with opposing views in just the same way, if they break the site guidelines the way you've been doing.)
Gumbo does not disclose anything about what group with special privileges you're supposed to be a part of and that's the entire point - I don't want to know. I don't care if you're black, white, or purple. Don't care about your gender, sexuality or personal life either. Never did, never will.
Which is precisely why bringing up minorities when you are just an anonymous jumble of letters and the attempted guilt trip is a bunch of insufferable manipulative hooey. It is not a "fair question" by any stretch of the imagination, you know nothing about me other than I don't subscribe to your garbage worldview.
You already exposed yourself as an insufferable bully with this: "The only people I’ve talked to who oppose DEI efforts were either blatantly sexist/racist"
Nice try. You go place burdens and play these games with people who have patience to put up with your nonsense. Strain as hard as you will to be offended and oppressed, no such luck bud, and absolutely nobody called you any names either.
I don't need you to be upset, your emotional state does not concern me one iota.
Talk about a lack of self control. You are extremely out of line.
You obviously will disrupt every workplace and gathering with tantrums and false accusations whenever you don't get your way. Tough cookies, you ain't getting your way with me no matter what.
"If you don't agree with me you are a bad person" is the most childish kindergarten bullshit imaginable. Take a look in the mirror, enough woke sharia. Enough.
The toggles filters are driving me nuts, as it stands, it unclear what the checked state is. One would assume that when the "handle" is on the right side, however, the color coding suggest otherwise.
Congrats on your launch.
Looks like it's all-on by default and you're toggling items off .. which means the colour coding is ok but the ux may be counter-intuitive for some? Not to mention the white highlighting looks like text inputs (the subtitle could easily be mistaken for a search bar).
Personally, I'd have gone with an "all on" toggle that gets deactivated if you activate any of the individual categories. Not a deal breaker.
Just candid feedback here, I think you are being downvoted because your comment is actually quite hard to digest. And here, not event blaming it on the parentheses.
Thanks for the feedback! I was going to edit it but looks like I can't.
Regardless, the main idea is that I support greed as a motivator because financially sovereign teams don't exist nor scale enough to support a given cause (especially if it's a very difficult problem).
Here is the problem of U.S. news. Journalism has turned I to a contest for attention. How is it relevant to report on one (or even few) employees posting something?
First, the article starts with a misleading report on a Facebook drone. There's nothing in the above summary about that.
Second, much of the article is about the eagerness of journalists to cover Facebook. Again, the above summary says absolutely nothing about that.
Third, the article talks about Facebook cultivating relationships with journalists or writing articles itself. Surprise, surprise, the above summary says nothing about that either.
Then there's a large part of the article on Facebook security measures to track down leaks. Once again, the summary doesn't even hint at that.
Yet another example is discussion of Facebook's reactive strategy, in which Facebook responds to bad press but does not proactively do anything to address issues before they come to light in the media. And, once again, the summary says nothing about that.
Saying that Zuckerberg is contemptuous of Facebook's users and that even he thinks they shouldn't trust him is actually not a summary of the article at all. It might be related, but touches on NONE of the concrete points the article makes.
Genuine question here.
Any data on the typical duration of these loans? How long typically the Fed holds collateral?
I remember 2 years ago the market throwing a tantrum because of the fed unwinding it balance sheet. Doesn’t that mean that typical loans are never repaid and the Fed just let the bonds mature?
I think the "unwinding" was Fed stopping QE, which is slightly different - they were buying bonds on the market (not as emergency liquidity) to prop up asset prices (buy bonds -> reduce interest rate -> investors seek other sources of returns -> buy stocks -> stock prices go up... same with real estate). Bonds mature (literally disappear), so if you want to keep propping up asset prices, you must keep buying new bonds as the ones you own mature. The Fed was doing that for a while, then tried to slowly stop, ween the market off the cheap money (because if the patient is supposed to be healthy, s/he should be able to survive and thrive without drugs). Trump threw a tantrum (I guess he knew/suspected that Fed was the only/main thing propping up asset prices, without Fed the market would crash/stop increasing, which isn't good for elections because politicians always get the blame), the markets weren't happy either (basically NIMBY - you're invested so you want to keep the value of your assets as high as possible).
I would be curious to know how this helicopter money policy could affect inflation assuming the Covid-19 outbreak causes a bigger than anticipated supply-side shock.
