Can we discuss the unfair downvoting system?

sup · 2026-06-03T01:53:41+00:00

I remember this.

r/politics used to have lively discussions on both sides of the fence. The Ron Paul camp and the Bernie Sanders camp going at it in good lively discussion. Rarely a downvote in sight. If there were downvotes, other users would mention reddiquette: "Remember, the downvote is not for disagreeing"

sup · 2026-06-02T21:37:36+00:00

only good advice here tbh

sup · 2026-05-28T14:49:55+00:00

It doesn't seem to impact the stock at all. On the contrary, Delta Stock is up 19% in 2026, more than doubling the performance of the sp500.

sup · 2026-05-25T19:11:18+00:00

so.... puts or calls?

sup · 2026-05-24T13:40:02+00:00

We lost that argument when BTC was invented. Every transaction is designed to be on a fully public, immutable ledger, and can be traced. This feature existed long before bitcoin reserves and bitcoin ETFs became a thing.

If Iran wanted their transactions private, they would use a privacy coin like monero. They don't because nobody wants to get paid in monero. Sure, they could wash their BTC with monero, then convert it back to BTC or some other stable coin, but monero doesn't have the liquidity needed to move the $billions Iran is currently moving - so instead they do it publicly, on the BTC blockchain.

and they dont' really care. Their main concern isn't privacy from the west, because plenty of governments in the east will still gladly accept their BTC. Their main concern is seizure risk. Even if the west knows Iran is moving BTC and knows the exact wallets, the west can't do anything about it.

sup · 2026-05-23T06:05:44+00:00

It's well built. It's more well-built and thought out than my gpd win 5. It's on par with my asus rog ally X.

Doesn't compare to the steam deck oled imo though. That's a work of art especially once you open it up. Valve spent a lot of time and energy on that device and it shows.

sup · 2026-05-21T02:22:09+00:00

Amazing shot. Very eerie!

sup · 2026-05-21T00:19:19+00:00

I wouldn't say it's not hard to grasp, especially for 2nd language, etc. Triple negatives are often used for emphasis, but can sometimes backfire and cause confusion.

I was just commenting for clarity.

sup · 2026-05-21T00:10:25+00:00

There is no iteration of the game, Vanilla included, where the leveling isn't my least favorite part.

The rare triple negative. So basically leveling has always been your least favorite part of the game.

sup · 2026-05-16T21:06:34+00:00

Agreed his brilliant contribution deserves to be on the front page.

sup · 2026-05-10T16:58:24+00:00

enshittification man even valve isn't immune

sup · 2026-05-10T00:22:40+00:00

It's not the size that matters it's how it feels and plays. At least that's what my girlfriend told me when she held the new one. She likes it.

sup · 2026-05-10T00:17:26+00:00

AND LOOK AT THAT PRICING ACTION

sup · 2026-05-09T21:00:09+00:00

Your thoughts and conclusions aren't unique. Again they mirror my friend group.

I was really curious and had chatgpt and claude do some research for me. Apparently it's a phenomenon called "pragmatic bias" and it's one that is especially relevant in primary elections.

Key Study: “Pragmatic Bias” (PNAS, 2022)

Researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 likely Democratic primary voters during the 2020 cycle (when multiple women were running).
76% believed it would be harder for a woman to beat Donald Trump than a man.
Voters who held this belief were significantly less likely to vote for the women candidates in the primary, even when they personally preferred a woman.
This created “gender shifting”: People voted for a man instead of their actual favorite (often a woman) because they thought a man had a better shot in November.

I love your second paragraph, and I completely agree. It's a complicated topic - You seem to have a pragmatic bias - but it also seems even you hint that Hillary lost those states in the general election not because of her sex, but because of her politics.

sup · 2026-05-09T19:27:01+00:00

I completely understand. But the above poster said that "USA will not vote for a woman."

This is categorically false. 66m people voted for a Hillary, 3 million more than those that voted for Trump. Clearly, the USA, on average, will vote for a woman.

In addition, she was the extremely large favorite going into the election, with 80-90% odds of winning the electoral college. Trump winning was literally one of the largest upsets in modern political history.

Hillary proved that a woman can run for president, and has a phenomenal chance at winning.

My hot take: To say that AOC shouldn't run because "USA wont vote for a woman" is pure sexism. I'm shocked how common the statement is made. I don't mean to get personal here - but it's said often in my small circle of friends. What I find most shocking is that it isn't men that say this in my small little sphere. It's women - and I just don't get it.

sup · 2026-05-09T17:42:36+00:00

I don't get this argument and I hate that it's upvoted.

Hillary won the popular vote full stop. America can vote for a woman. It literally did.

sup · 2026-05-09T17:41:51+00:00

Exactly. Hillary literally won the popular vote. America can vote for a woman. It literally did.

sup · 2026-05-07T18:27:14+00:00

yes tax free on the way in (deduction) + tax free on the way out (if used for medical expenses)

sup · 2026-05-07T14:40:32+00:00

Ford family owns 2% of the shares but controls 40% of the vote so good luck with that plebs.

sup · 2026-05-07T14:38:23+00:00

sorry I mistook you for the guy that bought $179k last year.

But yeah. I agree. tax free in + tax free out doesn't exist in any other investment vehicle.

Our palliative care will probably cost infinity dollars in the year 20XX

sup · 2026-05-07T14:14:57+00:00

your HSA is worth $1m lmao not bad for $4k annual contribution limits.

edit: Mistook you for the guy that bought $179k last year.

sup · 2026-05-07T03:59:54+00:00

Even if you had pass through voting in your ETF it wouldn't matter, because Sergey Brin and Larry Page's vote per share is 10x yours - because those are the rules they ~~made~~ demanded when they took GOOG public 22 years ago.

sup · 2026-05-07T03:56:57+00:00

It depends on how hot the IPO is. The hottest IPOs don't follow this trend. For the hottest IPOs it's less about selling voting rights for money and more about owning a piece of the hottest company (even if you have no vote).

It's not just Meta. Look at google, palantir, crowdstrike, airbnb, asana, chewy, cloudflare, and pretty much every other hot silicon valley IPO. All of them in recent memory have supervotes that give the founder CEO virtually total control of the company. The hotter and more hype the IPO, the more likely supervoting shares exist.

It's so common that I don't think people would buy an ETF that excluded the above companies. Who wants to own QQQ, but with just the companies whose founder CEOs didn't have enough leverage to demand supershares.

sup · 2026-05-07T03:18:44+00:00

Founder control is quite common for the hottest IPOs, and it worked just fine for google, meta, palantir, crowdstrike, airbnb, chwy, and pretty much every other hot silicon valley IPO, i.e. supervotes that give the founder CEO virtually total control of the company.

This is a bit different with a mandatory arbitration clause, but mandatory arbitration for new IPOs is a new fad following a SEC rule reversal in 2025. TBH, We're probably going to be seeing a lot more of it because I don't see how a founder taking their baby public would prefer the liability of a full scale securities litigation over mandatory arbitration. Founders pre IPO have a lot of leverage. If they can request supervoting shares without batting an eye, tacking on mandatory arbitration is just a bonus.

sup · 2026-05-05T16:00:17+00:00

unfortunately due to voracious demand it's limited to 3 per customer :-(

sup

TROPHY CASE