Hawaiian eruption last a long time and the lava flows persist for years.

Your effusive eruptions last on average no longer than our effusive eruptions. The fact that Iceland also has phreatic eruptions doesn't change the fact that most of ours are effusive basalt, just like yours, with corresponding eruptive dynamics. Also, FYI, for a given total effusion volume, slow eruptions are easier to divert. Diversion is much more challenging when an equivalent volume of lava is effused in a short period of time. And it's not like you have vastly larger average lava flows than we do. The largest lava flow on Earth in the Holocene (modern era) is in Iceland (the THjórsárhraun - 900km2, 25km3, 70km underground travel followed by 130-140km on the surface). For comparison, Hawaii's largest holocene flow is the Ailaau Flow at 430km2, 4-5km3, and 40km.

If we want to limit to more recent flows (since Ailaau was fairly recent, in case you think Iceland stopped having big eruptions), Iceland's biggest *after* Alia'au was Laki (1783–1784 AD), at 600km2, 15km3, and 80km. It lasted for 8 months to 2 years, depending on whether you count the concurrent Grímsvötn eruption as part of it. So much gas was released from that huge volume of lava that despite us being nearly arctic (polar volcanoes have much lower near-term climate impacts than equatorial volcanoes), it caused a winter so severe that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and ice was seen floating in the Gulf of Mexico.

We simply get bigger effusive eruptions than you, full stop. Not all eruptions, of course, both of us have a huge variance in eruption scales and dynamics. But trying to claim ours are somehow "easier" is just not in line with the facts. Also, Hawaiian eruptions tend to occur on terrain that slopes significantly more consistently toward the sea, aka where you want to divert lava toward; on flatter or less-consistently-angled terrain, lava "piles up" more and makes it easier to overtop berms.

There is a practical side that it is easier to move people and build coffee shacks

I'm not talking about "coffee shacks", I'm talking about whole communities and beloved places. In particular, I'm thinking about the 2018 Lower Puna eruption. Of course the homes near the vents in Leilani Estates were doomed, but there is absolutely NO reason why you should have lost anywhere close to as much as you did so far from the vents. Losing Kapoho Bay for example was simply cultural fatalism. I watched a person crying on the news saying she didn't understand why Pele chose to take such a beautiful place. It's not Pele who took it, it's your insane resistance against doing anything to protect yourselves. That was one of the easiest possible flows to divert. Most of the lava fronts moved at a crawl, you had warning long in advance of the eruption and a very slow eruptive rampup (didn't really take off until June), and you had a steep slope to the south into unpopulated areas you could have easily diverted it down. Losing all that was a choice.

"Oh, we can't!" is just an excuse for your fatalism that gives you an excuse to not put forth the effort to actually do it. It's not the 1940s anymore, we're not chucking surplus WWII bombs at lava tubes anymore. Lava diversion is a science and is routinely effectively done. There are limits, but you were nowhere near said limits for sites far from the vents. There are costs, but they are nowhere near the costs that you paid by refusing to act.

There's so much excess bullshit in Texas they could dry it and burn it to power data centers.

It's part of the bullshit-in/bullshit-out AI bubble.

If it's systemic then it's not a problem, it just results in increased hiring which would offset the loss of profits and be a net positive for the economy.

If it's not systemic, then the companies with the stupidest executives get bought by the companies who didn't make the same mistake. The idiots who turned into "prompt engineers" become redundant, and then when there aren't enough workers there's new hiring that's being trained under the surviving (competent) employees.

Nothing in that process saves the AI companies once the bean-counters have clear evidence it isn't a sustainable productivity gain. When shit hits the fan you can count on the usually-irrational investors to suddenly become worshipers of the great oracle of Actuarial Accounting.

To paraphrase the famous quote, trying to time the end of irrationality is not feasible.

We knew the .com bubble was going to burst a long time before it did. Even when it did burst, it was a somewhat slow process.

People are stupid. Yeah, right, but no; even stupider than that! They could easy fall for numerous more rounds of bs and hype. When the hype ends depends only on when those paying for it become unable to pay the newsvertainment outlets to gush. And that won't happen all at once. At early stages of the bubble bursting might just look like, and be narrated as, one of the companies "winning" over the competition. When really the competition ran out of money first. Which drives all their customers to those remaining, which drains their resources even faster since it isn't a sustainable business. But they won't admit the problem until well after they're no longer able to issue new shares to raise money.

No, I'm not going to play that game. You can google yourself.
It's a matter of such renowned concern that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not be appraised of it.

The gist of it is easy.
Either Congresspeople, Pelosi being within the top 5 or 10 in terms of returns- I can't remember- are omniscient, or they trade based on insider information they obtain in Congress.
It's a simple matter of math.
They perform better than professional investors at far, far above what would be possible given random chance. So they have some edge.
When you have a collection of people with an unspecified edge... you can guess that the edge may have something to do with that group of people.

This makes even more sense in retrospect, knowing that the author primarily identified with the PHB as the protogonist.

If Wally was the protagonist he would have written himself a sportscar.

No media source is evidence. Perhaps least of all, Fox News. Their trades are the evidence.
Did you think that was clever?

You're a fucking moron.
I said clearly that none of it rises to the evidentiary requirement for a criminal prosecution, but enough circumstantial evidence can, in fact, convict. And she's got heaps of it. Well, more accurately- her husband does.

Visa and NVIDIA trades come to recent mind, and there's the fact that they outperform professional investors by up to 50%.
I'll gladly stand with you and say, "We can't call them criminals". Because we can't.
But to say there's no evidence? No, that's flat out fucking political delusion.

Faux News isn't "evidence."

Yawn

Eyeroll. We don't know that eating chicken on Sunday is illegal until someone takes it to court and loses.
Give me a fucking break. Does that kind of logic strike you as insightful?

This is an assertion we can work with, but it's wrong.

More accurately, it fits the definition of what the courts have found not to be insider trading for as long as SEC rule 10b-5 has been in existence.

Trump has no fiduciary responsibility to any consumer of that information, or to the organizations he has the power to move.
While it's true that this is uncharted territory- it's uncharted in the same way that Congresscritters trading on insider information was. It required an act to make it illegal, because there's no fiduciary responsibility. That information didn't come from the inside- it came from the most outside place possible.

Category 1 isn't outnumbered, it's the largest category. But by definition their numbers don't really matter right now.

AI has to be "trained" on data, an training it on itself gives poor results, so your point merely serves to show that you don't know enough about the subject to comment on it. You should instead be at the "asking questions" stage.

If we're being technical, insider trading doesn't exist.
There is securities fraud, and the SEC regulations and jurisprudence that amount to what we loosely call insider trading.
Securities fraud, of course, is illegal.

Correct.

Incorrect.
So very close to correct- but still incorrect.
Insider information is not information that the public doesn't know- if that were illegal.... lol.
Insider information is secret non-public information.
Knowing something before someone else and trading on it is not illegal.
Knowing something you weren't supposed to know because it wasn't supposed to be public and trading on it is securities fraud.

The time interval is a red herring. You are wrong without regard to it.

Na.
If that were the actual caselaw surrounding it, it would be fucking insane.

There needs to be a breach of fudiciary trust or confidence.
A third party monetizing their power to affect traded corporations, and people having a better read of that shitbag is not insider trading.

It is.

Stop using the word insider. It's a weasel word. There's nothing insider about this.

It's a markedly different form of ick.
Imagine someone finds out that the SEC is going to ban the trading of cryptocurrencies.
Imagine he tells the world.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading.... for having traded on public information about entities that did not have that information in confidence?
No, this is someone monetizing their market moving power. It's fucking vile, but there's nothing "insider" about it.

The SEC won't do shit, because it cannot do shit.
1) This isn't insider trading.
2) Reacting off of privileged access to public statements is not insider trading. It must be confidential information about a traded entity.

This is a market mover charging for early access to his movement power.
There's nothing illegal about it, though it is pretty fucking vile.