No

bsky.app/profile/bft....

What’s the appropriate amount of casual correspondence for a First Lady to have with a pedophile that you partied with, that’s the question we are here to litigate today

bsky.app/profile/bft....

bsky.app/profile/bft....

bsky.app/profile/bft....

Liar, see below:

Yeah, I mean we made Musk president, that’s gotta be worse than a bootlicking article

Quarantine the isle until we can figure out it’s problem

Elon Musk's Robotaxi Lie YouTube video by Bennett Tomlin

youtu.be/4nNbjHA6c6o?...

They can get it sooner than that if Elon deletes more parts

I’m waiting for the $25k car with no steering wheel or pedals that was slated for 2022

Damn brits

Still a bad article

I have basically zero recollection of this article

Wut

That’s a story that involves a genie with a sense of humor you know

You found bitcoin, guide it until it becomes valuable, separate yourself, shape it under your real identity during the blocksize war, bet big on lightning for small payments and liquid for institutions that trust each other, invest in “Bitcoin banks”, and then Saylor becomes face of bitcoin

Though imagine if he was Satoshi and Liquid was actually his follow-up and he really thought it was going to be the thing

Probably not though, because why would you

Hey I think they’re all the way to up 4,000 BTC in liquid, maybe someday it’ll be as big as WBTC or Justin’s secret tokenized bitcoin disaster

What does this mean for Liquid?

Adam and Paul feel like they have the personalities where someday they might try to fuck it up

The best case for Bitcoin is Hal because he can’t fuck it up anymore

Carreyrou looks at it and thinks it has the right vibe and style, cas and I look at our interactions and don’t think it’s the same vibe

Yeah I don’t want to overstate our position, Back at least fits the (capabilities + interest) intersection; but the fact that we’re all still tea leaf reading is an indicator all its own

was noted by a 'Moneymorning.com' Contributing Editor, Martin Hutchinson, on 28 April 2008, that prior to the sub-prime crisis mortgage-backed securities, although complex, were priced according to Markit's AB Index, which used the average weight of four series in the index to track the price of housing derivatives. However, when the ABX Index collapsed a reference point for pricing of such derivatives was no longer available. Instead of marking down Level 2 assets with the negative publicity which would inevitably follow, some firms instead elected to reclassify those assets as Level 3 assets. The logic of such a reclassification is that if there is no market into which an asset can be sold, it cannot technically be written down since there is no price (collapsed or otherwise) to which reference can be made to make such a write-down possible. Marking to market is impossible since there is no market in existence. Accordingly, the price allocated to Level 3 assets can theoretically be anything. The prospect of huge losses on assets held in Level 2 does not materialise since they have effectively been moved elsewhere within the balance sheet. A second advantage of inflating the holdings of Level 3 assets is that, if they are revalued upwards through the use of internal pricing models, it remains possible to continue paying high levels of bonuses and salaries even though the true value of the holdings is, in the extreme, zero. A further advantage of allocating assets to Level 3 is that, when market conditions eventually begin to improve and liquidity returns to those asset-backed securities, it then becomes possible to reallocate these again to Level 2. This is a further example of legally permissible creative accounting; when the value of the ABS collapses and there is no market into which it can be sold, setting a figure for an unrealised loss becomes impossible since there is no price to which reference can be made. At that point it becomes possible to allocate the …

Can’t mark to market if markets stop working

Which is like fine for a casual video or post or even column, but does feel weird for a New York Times investigation by one of the most famous living investigative journalists you know?

Yeah he really was kinda just following all the people who have said Back before

(Which funny enough that aphorism works with a Hal-Dave-Adam trifecta [I dont think it's Dave though])