The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Don't Do It Lennar -- Talk To Me Instead

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-05-25 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 54 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh boy did I get into it with a Libertarian (big "L") friend of mine the other night in the bar over the Twitter court ruling -- that Trump cannot block people on his Twitter feed.

Let's back this up a bit.  My friend's argument is that Twitter is a private company (publicly owned, but private) and thus can make whatever rules it wants.  Mine is simple: Twitter, like most so-called "social media", is a de-facto monopoly in at least some respects and when you become a public figure you give up the right to make policy pronouncements to only select people when said pronouncements impact all.

The court, in my view correctly, drew the bright line in the right place.  It found that the President can "mute" people but not block them.

There's an important distinction here.  If I "mute" someone I do not hear what they say, but they can still see what I say.  If I block someone then they cannot see what I say but I can still look at their words.

So what Twitter is now compelled to do is to prevent any public official from using "Block" -- but not "Mute."

In other words such a person cannot be compelled to listen to your speech but they cannot prevent you from hearing their public speech.

I see this as a correct decision; a public official, when speaking publicly, cannot prevent (for example) certain people from coming to hear his or her speech, cannot prevent a certain group of people from listening to a given radio station at a given time (which incidentally are also privately owned) and, in the world of today's media where audio streams can be and are delivered encrypted (such as with Sirius/XM) it would be entirely possible for such a public official and Sirius/XM (and terrestrial digital stations!) to create and enforce such a policy mechanism should they so choose.

As of now with regard to public officials that's illegal, and IMHO properly so.  A public official when speaking in public cannot control who hears his or her speech.  That's pretty-basic stuff from my point of view, especially considering that you can FOIA any of a public official's official acts in the general sense and any possible redaction reasons they might be able to avail themselves of disappear if said speech was publicly communicated at the time of the original act or at any future point previous to your request.

That I can evade such a "block" by setting up a second account on Twitter that never posts anything (which by the way is trivial) doesn't matter.  The central point remains -- public speech by a public official cannot be selectively banned from certain people hearing it at the mere whim of said public official.

The court reached the correct decision in this case.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-05-24 16:01 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 92 references
 

Three more than Trump can muster..... (sorry, had 'ya there didn't I?)

 

Email kairia.rocks@gmail.com now to put this on your wall tomorrow!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2018-05-24 13:50 by Karl Denninger
in Technology , 179 references
[Comments enabled]  

I told you so.

A Portland family contacted Amazon to investigate after they say a private conversation in their home was recorded by Amazon's Alexa -- the voice-controlled smart speaker -- and that the recorded audio was sent to the phone of a random person in Seattle, who was in the family’s contact list.

Or, for the reading-impaired:

smiley

Look folks, I get it.  Home control and monitoring is both cool and powerful.

And useful.

Putting that data, ever, in the "cloud" is not only a supremely bad idea even if everything works 100% bug-free because the designers could intend to screw you with the information the facts are that there is no such thing as bug-free software, ever, period.

I get it.  You want the capability.  Good.  You can have it -- without giving up any vestige of privacy in your home.

I've got the package to do exactly that; does anyone want to buy, own, distribute and make a ton of money selling it?

Note: 

1. It never talks to the cloud.

2. It does not store authentication data (e.g. login and password) anywhere off your premise, including on your phone.  It gets a token with a validity time you choose on the phone (or browser, if you're talking to it over a browser) but never saves the authentication data anywhere except where it must, on the gateway itself, and there it is stored hashed.

3. It can do real-time video and images secured as well from common and insecure commodity-priced IP cameras; essentially all current such video cameras stream using unencrypted data streams, which means not only can anyone pick them off companies like Amazon, if you let them have "cloud" storage access to said data, can and must be presumed to be using visual recognition technology (e.g. facial recognition, etc) on that data.

Oh, and it has a licensing and security model based on SSL using a private CA (which the buyer of course would own and be able to customize to suit) so there's no ongoing demand to buy a public certificate either.

I know someone's out there who wants to cut the crap in this regard.  No, it won't take voice commands because there is no way to do that without severely compromising your privacy.  Yes, you must tap your phone screen. And?  You do that now every day -- right?

The asking price isn't a billion dollars, such as what Amazon paid for "Ring" either -- it's much, much more reasonable.  In fact if you're running a real business (or intend to) it's definitely within reach.

Come and get it -- first come, only served.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-05-24 10:32 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 116 references
[Comments enabled]  

No summit, I see.

Was there ever really a possibility of this working out?  Probably not, given the actual intent of the US, which is to "de-nuclearize" the Korean peninsula.  Of course we're not going to remove our nukes from the world, and since we have ships and planes that can and do carry them, never mind subs, well......

Yeah.

"You can't have 'em but we're going to keep ours, and point them at you."

Doesn't that sound an awful lot like the left's "gun control"?

Yeah, it does, because it is.

IMHO this is the proper response to it in both cases:

smiley

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-05-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Technology , 124 references
[Comments enabled]  

Whadda 'ya mean a car in "self-driving" mode ramming the rear of a stopped truck isn't considered "acceptable performance"?

The travel group found that 73% of American drivers say they would be “too afraid” to ride in a fully autonomous vehicle, up from 63% in late 2017. Also, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults would feel less safe sharing the road with a self-driving car while walking or riding a bicycle.

“Despite their potential to make our roads safer in the long run, consumers have high expectations for safety,” Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering and industry relations, said in a statement.

I have the potential to screw a Dallas Cowboys' cheerleader too.

Of course what's not disclosed is the odds of such potential working out for me.

Or for the AAA screamers.

Or for you, for that matter.

Oh, and if your car of choice is a Tesla it appears they come with a built-in crematorium pre-loaded with fuel for you too, if you happen to crash them the wrong way and can't get out of immediately (like, for instance, because you're unconscious!)

I don't suppose ramming another vehicle at highway speeds would be considered "operating as designed", and anyone who tries to tell me that a fire truck is not "reasonably visible" in front of the vehicle...... well, pull the other one eh?

Reality is that "out-of-scope" processing, otherwise known as sentience, is an inherent part of safe vehicle operation and no computer has ever demonstrated that.  So-called "AI" is nothing of the sort as no machine has ever demonstrated out-of-scope deduction.

Why?  Because both human and non-human hazards on the roads are non-deterministic, that's why.  To get rid of one (the human hazards) you'd have to prevent non-automated, non-100% communicating (that is, spying on you all the time) vehicles from the roads entirely which includes pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles and to prevent non-human hazards you'd have to ban rocks, deer, bears and other things that can and do intrude on roadways - including things like "gators" (tire casings from trucks.)

Good luck with that.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)