This is true - but it's also not fraud because it's legal. The only way to make it illegal is regulation and some on the NeoCapitalist side of the ledger are convinced that the only solution is less government.

OTOH, the other side of the coin, and why at least one major hedge fund has closed down, returning the capital to investors, is because it's getting hard to impossible to short where you think values are ridiculously high.

The famous case is the GameStock short squeeze. Retail investors set out to deliberately manipulate the price with the goal of forcing a liquidation of the shorts. If institutional investors had tried the same thing they would be in trouble - and possibly even going to prison - because market manipulation is one of the things that is regulated.

However, like so many things, while it was obvious from the social media noise that the goal of many of the retail investors was to manipulate a short squeeze, it's going to be hard to impossible to prove that any individual investor was doing that, especially as individual retail investors do not have the clout to do it, or even start it, on their own so you'd presumably (IANAL) have to prove collusion as well.

Yes, similar to an etf.

Perhaps a non-crypto example would be an ETF property fund.

Except the fund was formed by the investors putting in property they held rather than money.

Then they offload the ETF shares to the unsuspecting investor who trusts the value the fund has put on its assets.

I don't think it's quite that.

Normally, if I'm going to create a fund what I do is raise money from investors, go out and buy the underlying assets for my fund and then give the investors shares.

The investors get two things, access to my skill at investing, and the ability to spread their risk across the market without having to have hundreds of separate holdings.

What's happening here is, instead, the fund is being funded by assets the fund manager already holds but aren't really liquid and so are hard to price.

But once they've sold the shares in the fund, they've sold their hard to value asset for cash without having to actually find a buyer for a multi-hundred million holding or even having to properly value it.

The UK also had a veto over most of the rules that the EU introduced. I don't think it ever used it. In fact, in almost every case, the UK voted for the proposed rules. It was something like under 2% that it didn't want, mostly because the EU tends to make sure everyone is happy before even having the vote - you know, how adults agree stuff.

Pretty much. Although for many things the UK didn't have a veto but did very well out of the fact that if there was a disagreement at the "big country level" then it was France vs Germany with Britain being the casting vote.

Your 2% rings a bell - although that doesn't mean that the UK voted for the other 98%. The UK did abstain in a substantial proportion. - something like 60% of the time its vote went with the winning side, 38% abstain, 2% lose due to enough numbers on the other side.

The UK government also specialized in gold plating EU legislation. It would get the law it wanted passed in the EU and would then go over and above what the EU required while simultaneously saying to the voters "It's not us, the EU made us do it".

I know they have because I've done tests, down to confirming which hop is blackholing the data.

Genuine DNS was broken for me when a (TCP) DNS packet exceeds one MTU. I wrote a short program to send a (genuine) DNS request out and a short program to send a (genuine) response back that required multiple TCP packets and I could control the TTL on the packets being sent.

Every single hop until my router returns a TTL exceeded, so it's definitely seeing the packet. When the response packet fits in a single TCP packet, the router also sends a TTL exceeded. But as soon as the DNS packet required multiple TCP packets the router blackholes them.

I don't recall the exact details any more, it was nearly three years ago which I investigated this, but I think it might only have been the second TCP packet that got blackholed.

So the only way to get reliable DNS with DNSSEC is to make DNS queries on a port other than port 53 and have something "elsewhere" that forwards them on on the correct port.

I guess you didn't read this bit.

If you use DNSoTLS or DNSoHTTPS you're handing your data to whoever runs those so it's just the same problem with the same solution of different port. I don't actually care if my ISP wants to monitor my DNS queries but I do care that they don't work at all.

Ultimately, in my case, it doesn't matter what port you use or what protocol you use so long as it's not port 53 as the only traffic allowed to cross the modem on port 53 is (a subset of) valid DNS traffic.

I'm on CGNAT. While I understand there are ways to get this turned off, if you do you lose ipv6 connectivity.

My ISP is not the most competent[1] but it's my only option unless I go with something like 5G.

Sometimes IPv4 fails but not IPv6 and sometimes the other way around.

I notice far more quickly when ipv6 goes down. Far more websites stop working that do when I've only got IPv6 connectivity.
(Note that because of the way it fails, it's not that I lose the route, it's that the modem loses the traffic until it's rebooted so the failures are related to which protocol the connection tries to use)

[1] For example, they do deep packet inspection on port 53 (I have no idea why) but can't handle TCP packets that span more than one MTU. A query of debian.org that includes the DNSSEC information gets a response of more than 1500 bytes. So the only way to get reliable DNS with DNSSEC is to make DNS queries on a port other than port 53 and have something "elsewhere" that forwards them on on the correct port.

(And by using a resolver that sets the TTL on the response, I can confirm that it's the modem in my home that is dropping the packet, nothing else as I get the expected TTL expired messages all they way to my home.)

The other option would be to use the modem as the dns resolver. I *assume* this would work but I don't trust it :-)

If this actually does verify that there's an exploitable vulnerability and also verifies that the fix resolves it then perhaps it won't be so bad.

I don't have much experience of this but I was once working on a patch where I knew I'd got a security vulnerability (command injection via quotes in strings I needed to pass to a script) but before I worked on that (where it wasn't obvious how to do it securely) I wanted to test if the idea worked at all.

I tried chatgpt for ideas on how to resolve the vulnerability but it was "utterly incompetent", it never once suggested anything that would actually solve the issue, just different ways of writing the same issue, and, in fact, told me that the idea I had to solve it (base64 encoding the strings) wasn't supported in an asterisk dialplan. Fortunately, I read the docs and didn't rely on chatgpt!
(It's more common, IMO, for it to halucinate function that don't exist but sound just like what you want than to assert that what you want doesn't exist but it gets it wrong both ways)

It's equally (or more) incompetent when it comes to writing python macros in libreoffice. This is where you realise just how bad it is at programming, There are thousands of pages of documentation but it just ignores them completely and comes up with something "completely random and totally non-working". You'd hope that "AI" would help save time and be able to quickly send you to the right pages but it doesn't save any time at all.

but if we're speculating about the existence of a superuniverse in which this one is being simulated then "It cannot have an oracle because I can't imagine, based on the physics of this universe, how one could exist" seems to be presupposing the conclusion.

I don't know if it's been proven in general but for every case I've seen described, it's fairly trivial to show that given an oracle O for problem P, there's a problem P' that is non-computable/non-deterministic even given O.

It's oracles all the way down.

Ah, yes. Quantum collapse, of course. What they mean is: "I think the double slit experiment changes its behavior because (ooooh) a human is looking at it, not because there's a fucking thing in the way triggering wave-to-particle transition."

snip...

So what do you make of the quantum eraser experiments?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Oh, and just in case someone comes back and says "perhaps ZFC is inconsistent" then we can prove anything including that the universe is a simulation and the universe is not a simulation so the entire original paper that started this article is moot.

Is that statement/question supposed to make sense? It doesn't.

The post to which I replied said (with obvious typos corrected)

Just because we cannot describe something with our limited mathematical skills doesn't mean it can't be described algorithmically.

But BB(750) - the 750th busy beaver number, *can* be described "with our limited mathematical skills" but cannot be "described algorithmically"

https://www.ingo-blechschmidt....

FTAOD, N in lemma 3.2.5 is less than 750.

There are plenty of numbers that are not computable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Naroditsky was one of the best chess commentators for "not so good" players watching top level games.

Along with Howell and Houska, he took the time to explain the "obvious". All too often a move is "impossible" because it leads to a losing position three or four moves further on, but while that is obvious to any high rated player, most of us miss these things.

Howell tends to play these things out on the board, Naroditsky would often just explain them. Most of the time Naroditsky's level of explanation was just what I needed and get me thinking along the right lines without spoon feeding the answer.

This is a real tragedy.

I think something must have been lost in translation.

More likely that this was "scratch" space, shouldn't have been used for critical stuff, and was never intended to be backed up.

But "the Ministry of Personnel Management" objected to the fees that they were charged to store data on on of the other 95 systems that were also destroyed in the fire and were backed up and told employees to use the G-Drive which, quite possibly, every government employee got automatically so it was "free" to the department.