rDrama: #1 used marsuit exchange

102

cyberdick pedda/modda Dead name deez nutz ya queer. 🍒🍆 5d ago (archive.is) 1,495 thread views #263674

EFFORTPOST From "Homeless & Left Without Food " to Teen Vogue Cover Story

63

63

102

116

/h/femaledatingstrategy House Femboy Founder

ThatHoeOverThere xhe/xer Anti-scrote activist :marseysuffragette:

2d ago (twitter.com) 1,772 thread views #264250

Grifting rightoid pickmeisha finally learns that "red pill" moids will embrace the Taliban to own the heckin foids

115

Block /h/femaledatingstrategy

115

116

27

/h/aaretz

DEIShill diver/sity :marseydiversity:

Diversity Is Our Strength :marseydiversity:

23hr ago (telegraph.co.uk) 389 thread views #264708

The Israel Defence Forces are the most moral soldiers in the world

14

Block /h/aaretz

14

27

Just when coverage of Israel in much of the broadcast media couldn't seem any more spiteful and misleading -- the slippage into the mainstream of slurs like "genocide" and "famine", for instance, neither of which are remotely accurate descriptions for what is going on in Gaza -- a story breaks that destroys all my remaining confidence that such outlets will cover the war impartially.

It was reported last week that a "mass grave" had been discovered in Khan Younis. Few were willing to blame the Israelis directly, but the coverage -- and the response from some politicians -- heavily implied that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) must have been responsible. I listened and read with a now-familiar torpor; vaguely interested in whether anyone would question the story's assumptions, while knowing that they wouldn't.

The globally parroted suggestion that the IDF had tied Gazans' hands behind their back before shooting them and dumping them in these graves (there is a deliberate resonance here: the SS often shot Jews in Eastern Europe into graves they'd forced them to dig) immediately struck me and most other sane Israel-watchers as almost certainly untrue. Israel, unlike Hamas, does not conduct warfare with freewheeling sadism; instances of any such foul play are investigated and punished, for which there are plenty of examples.

Of course, I could be wrong in this case, but I highly doubt it -- especially given that geo-imaging now shows that the "mass graves" are actually on a site in hospital grounds in which Palestinians had previously buried dead bodies.

But there is a tendency to always assume the worst of the IDF. There is an ancient anti-Semitic trope of Jews drinking the blood of the innocents. A version of this trope appears to have structured many people's views of Israel's war in Gaza since the Hamas attack of October 7 -- and indeed long before, at least since the turn of the millennium when the Second Intifada broke out, receiving similar encouragement to that enjoyed by Hamas now.

The urge to portray the IDF as an immoral army is very strong indeed; almost a religion in itself. But it's wrong. In fact, the IDF has a strong claim to being the most moral army in the world.

I once interviewed Asa Kasher, the philosopher and linguist who wrote the IDF's code of ethics, in his humble flat in a Tel Aviv suburb. I was amazed at the sobriety and rigour with which he had approached his task. This very unglamorous philosophy professor had put immense thought into the life-and-death implications of his work.

The code sets out four "fundamental values", number three of which is "human dignity". This states explicitly that "every individual is of inherent value, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender or status". Soldiers are instructed to "maintain their humanity during combat". Elsewhere, under "discipline", it reads that "the soldier will ensure they are only giving out legal orders, and do not follow illegal orders".

This code of ethics used to be handed out in paper format to all conscripts and is now disseminated in basic training. And it's hardly surprising that the IDF seeks to inculcate such values in its troops. Israel is a democratic, free country, and many non-Jewish Israeli citizens serve in its armed forces. It also knows that it will face more scrutiny than perhaps any other army in the world.

And it's not just theoretical: the IDF's morality is seen in its actions. It is currently trying to dismantle probably the most extensive, cunning terrorist infrastructure ever known, one that is highly likely to have been built with the help of hundreds of millions of Western taxpayer money, UN and other "aid" funds. Hamas operates via an outstandingly well-constructed tunnel network bigger than the whole London Underground.

Israel uses a great deal of precision technology to limit the bloodshed. But it's difficult. There are booby traps and mines above, below, and fire all around. Hamas's whole strategy revolves around using civilian shields and as many brutal tricks as possible, such as those that have resulted in IDF soldiers firing on their own and on aid workers.

And still journ*lists and Twitter armies lap up the idea that Israel is going after "women and children", refusing to acknowledge how and why they end up stuck in the cross-hairs.

Despite this near-impossible battlefield, the IDF seems to have managed to keep its ratio of civilians to combatants killed lower than almost any other army ever has. The world eats up Hamas figures for the numbers who have been killed, naturally refusing to distinguish between Hamas fighters and civilians.

But according to one analysis earlier this year, even if we accept the terror group's statistics, for every Hamas combatant eliminated, approximately 1.5 civilians have been tragically killed. Given that the UN says that civilians usually make up a shocking 90 per cent of casualties in war (a 1:9 ratio), this is impressive.

Unlike most, Israel drops leaflets and sends texts to people before any attacks so they can evacuate; in this war, it has sacrificed some of its objectives in order to limit civilian deaths.

No army gets this right all the time, but the IDF operates in a manner light years away from that of all the terror groups and militias that hate Israel, currently being cheered on college campuses.

It is the ultimate taboo but it is true: the IDF is the most moral army in the world, and its enemies not only know this, but also trade on it.

63

/h/pol

Poj they/them :marseysmokealarmbeep:

THE ROBOT IS STUCK! :marseysmokealarmbeep:

1d ago (reddit.com) 775 thread views #264609

Stupidpol argues with a witch

35

Block /h/pol

35
63

175

kaamrev they/them 3d ago (image post) 1,076 thread views #264181

my dad sent me this Boomer Toss

46

46

175

154

Dramamine seed/feed Hardcore womanophile (come get me CIA) 3d ago (image post) 1,988 thread views #264173

Adam Sessler (washed up former video game media personality) has figured out the real intentions of the Palestinian protestors: Supporting Donald J Trump's reelection

69

69

154

26

/h/bharat

Sasanka_of_Gauda maha/raja :marseybengal2:

Hypermuscular Hindu Beast :!marseybengal2:

20hr ago (twitter.com) 323 thread views #264745

Paki girl gets a free heart transplant in India, Paki reminds other Pakis how they're still kaffir tho

6

Block /h/bharat

6

26

42

autodrama they/them i suck robo peepee 1d ago (reddit.com) 482 thread views #264447

[🤓🤓🤓🤓🔘] Itachitards think Itachi can beat Pain. This sub is ridiculous.

34

34

42

5

Shellshock gabe/itch :marseysheepdog:

‘twould be simpler for all to be marseys and dogs :marseywave:

8hr ago (youtube.com) 13 thread views #264878

rDrama music

1

1
5

20

/h/kappa

PoonstaryerCaribeaner sae/less In a perpetual state of gender euphoria. 18hr ago (text post) 96 thread views #264797

And so ends the impromptu LB2 tournament.

12

Block /h/kappa

12

20

41

/h/personal NSFW House Racist Founder

Maximus pee/pee r-slurred commentary 17hr ago (image post) 312 thread views #264810

Its over bros

19

Block /h/personal

19

41

87

/h/redscarepod House Vampire Founder

cyberdick pedda/modda Dead name deez nutz ya queer. 🍒🍆 2d ago (reddit.com) 1,652 thread views #264365

RSP finally admits the righitoid conspiracy theories are real

44

Block /h/redscarepod

44

87

4

/h/bharat

DickonManwoody they/them 4hr ago (image post) 18 thread views #264914

Jai bhim! 💙💪💙💪💙

2

Block /h/bharat

2
4

37

/h/slackernews

J deux/rama :marseyflagpalestine:

21hr ago (twitter.com) 498 thread views #264727

Sqlite tops 1 trillion instances

46

Block /h/slackernews

46

37

99

/h/kino

JimieWhales she/bitch An educated, strictly organic, ortho molecular aware patriotic princess 5d ago (rdrama.net) Edited 5d ago 640 thread views #263459

EFFORTPOST @Grue made the mistake of asking me why Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life sucked so now you all have to suffer, too. [Spoilers]

89

Block /h/kino

89

99

deep breath

Spoilers for a 20 year old TV series & TW for special interest 'tism...

The creator/showrunner/lead writer of Gilmore Girls was Amy Sherman-Palladino (ASP), and she's the main person responsible for the unique cozy vibe and fast-paced, reference-heavy dialogue of the original series. She's also something of a crazy control freak who had a very particular predefined arc in mind for the show, one that would highlight the parallels between Rory and her mother and grandmother, Emily (the 3rd Gilmore Girl). For years fans heard about the mysterious "final 4 words" that she already knew would end the series. She's like the opposite of the GoT showrunners who had no idea how the frick they were going to wrap up the ending.

ASP may be a stubborn b-word but she's a good writer with strong hat game

Except... ASP was forced out after the penultimate sixth season of the original run in a contract dispute with the network, the details of which have always been hazy. Toward the end of the sixth season, ASP added a bunch of zany plots (e.g. Lorelai throwing herself at Rory's deadbeat dad, Christopher) that almost seemed like a vindictive attempt to sabotage the show on her way out the door. The new show runners dumped into the thick of it for the seventh season did their best to tie up all the bizarre loose ends, and in doing so they moved away from the predestined fatalism of ASP's original arc - the theme of which could be loosely summed up as "no matter how you try to run away from it, you always grow up to be your mother." :marseyitneverbegan:

Spoiled douchbag boyfriend, meet spoiled douchebag dad

For example, ASP always had in mind that Rory's rich, spoiled boyfriend, Logan, would be "her Christopher," a dissolute playboy who toys with her heart, knocks her up, and ultimately abandons her - but during the final season without ASP, the writers moved away from that storyline: Logan becomes estranged from his wealthy family, he has to stand on his own two feet, he exhibits personal growth. By the end of the series, he's ready to commit; he doesn't abandon Rory, he wants to marry her, but she decides she's not ready to settle down so young. The original series ends with Rory Gilmore, a promising young journ*list heading off to Iowa to cover the long-shot presidential campaign of a promising young Senator named Barack Obama.

The seventh season is divisive among fans for a few reasons (the hasty resolution of many of ASP's S6 landmine plots, the dialogue feels kind of off, some new characters are sloppily introduced late in the game) but I think most people enjoyed seeing Logan grow up a bit and the way his relationship with Rory matured. Most people liked the ending, and thought it was fitting to have Rory choose herself and her career over a man. There's a little bit of added millennial nostalgia/wish-fulfillment and serendipity to see Rory climbing onto the Obama campaign bus when we know he's going to win that race. As viewers, we figure Rory is off to a great start with a bright future ahead of her covering a landmark campaign up close.

Go get 'em, Ace!

Then, eight years later, Netflix gave ASP an assload of money to make A Year in the Life and she used it to take a giant shit all over Season Seven. She basically returned to Stars Hollow with the intent to settle old scores and give Gilmore Girls the ending that she knew it had to have: even if it didn't make a darn lick of sense almost a decade later. She has claimed that she has never watched S7, that she doesn't even really consider it canon. She said she had an assistant watch it and take notes for her. In AYITL, she kept one baby born in S7, and threw out almost everything else, determined to tell her version of what season 7 should have been.

Netflix: Buying your childhood to wear as a four-piece skinsuit

Lorelai and Luke (her main love interest/will-they-won't-they) act like newlyweds wrestling with the decision about whether to have kids, even though they've been married for the better part of a decade and Lorelai is pushing 50. Rory is broke, directionless and struggling like a new college grad, not like a woman in her 30s with access to a multimillion dollar trust fund. Logan is instantly back to being a useless frickboi: engaged to a beautiful woman we never see, but carrying on an affair with Rory.

The only good storyline in AYITL centers on Emily coming to terms with the loss of her husband, Richard (Rory's grandfather) and that story was forced on ASP by the real-life death of the actor Edward Herrmann. She had to actually write a new, age-appropriate story for Emily instead of dusting off whatever she wanted to do for S7, and it's so much better for it.

Poor Ed's brain cancer is the real MVP of AYITL

There's a bunch of other minor shit that sucks in AYITL: fat-shaming that feels very early-2000s and out of step with modern culture, lazily retconning certain characters to be gay for added diversity, an unfunny retread of the "Ann? Her?" gag from Arrested Development. But the main reason A Year In The Life is terrible is that ASP was too stubborn to incorporate any of the stories that other writers had given to her characters, so instead of a thoughtful extrapolation of how these characters might have lived and grown or changed over almost ten years, she did S7: ASP's Version. It's 2016, not 2007, but no one has changed at all or learned anything in the meantime.

A Year in the Life ends with the famous "final four words" that ASP had always preordained, even if they no longer make any goddarn sense from a narrative perspective:

"Mom?"

"Yeah?"

"I'm pregnant."

Barely 32 years old and having a bastard with this dude!

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, as a reward for your patience, enjoy this spot-on Mad TV parody:

29

SuicideShill k/ys die❌die❌die❌ 13hr ago (image post) 88 thread views #264851

uwu

4

4
29

57

BillAckman He/Him Founder of Pershing Capital, Collector of Scalps 4d ago (image post) 667 thread views #263938

EFFORTPOST GDP Report on Thurday? Earnings Season? Structural Inflation? What the heck are you talking about bro? Here, have some drugs and cut yourself. 😴😴😴

18

18

57

Since the advent of modern financial markets, bonds have always had the reputation of being conservative. The saying has been “Bonds would never make you rich.”

However, they would provide you with a moderate, steady, and dependable income.

This reputation was challenged in the 1970s and 1980s by treasuries yielding more than 10% in the wake of high inflation and the explosive growth in the high-yield market. In the decades that followed, yields drifted down in parallel with inflation, but investor excitement was maintained by a steady stream of capital gains (with the proliferation of ABS and MBS) as well as income.

However, once monetary easing hit its peak in the days following the Great Financial Crisis, high-quality bond yields fell to levels that promised very little income and at best modest capital gains, and it took a long time for yields to eventually recover to their historical averages. However, in the aftermath of the pandemic, massive government borrowing, inflation, and Fed tightening have all contributed to rising bond yields. But since over the past year, despite a winding down of pandemic effects, very steady economic growth, declining inflation, and a pulse in Fed tightening, bond volatility has persisted, with yields seeing sharp swings in both directions.

Indeed, since the Fed last raised rates on July 26th of last year, the 10-year Treasury yield has ranged from a low of 3.79% to a high of 4.98%. Statistically, this represents well above average volatility, and it raises some important questions for portfolio optimization (how to practically hedge). So it raises the question why bond volatility has risen, where it might go from here, and how investors should adapt to a world of more volatile bonds.

First, take a look at some key economic data and events for the week ahead. The most important economic numbers will be contained in Thursday's GDP report (keep an eye out for that). Business fixed investment, inventories and trade are all likely to detract from growth. However, the broad story appears to be one very modest deceleration from the 3.1% GDP growth seen over the course of last year to a 2.2-2.4%, while still running a little above the Federal Reserve's 1.8% longer-run estimate of the potential growth of the US economy.

Overall, it is expected these numbers to point to continued moderate economic expansion. Turning to the earnings season, with 14% of S&P 500 market cap reporting so far, the profit picture appears mixed, showing 70% of firms beating analysts' expectations in EPS, but only 46% beating on revenues. However, first quarter of corporate performance should be much clearer by the end of this week, since 158 of the S&P 500 companies are set to report over the next five days. Meta, ThermoFischer, IBM, AT&T and Boeing are set to release theirs today. Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Merck, Intel and Comcast set for tomorrow and Exxon, Chevron and Abbvie due on Friday. (Find your portfolio holdings date here https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/earnings , can't list them all 😴😴😴)

Investors will also be very interested in the translation of earlier CPI data for March into the Fed's preferred consumption deflation measures due out on Friday. Markets in general are pricing in that both the headline and core consumption deflation measures rose by 0.3% month to month in March, with year-over-year gains rising by 0.1% to 2.6% at the headline level and falling by 0.1% to 2.7% at the core level, that core inflation pressures are still easing, but at a glacially slow pace.

Just as financial commentators routinely say that we live in uncertain times, Michael Burry routinely says another recession is coming and Disney often claims the next Marvel movie is the best one yet, markets often claim that market volatility is unusually high. However, when it comes to the US bond market today, this is actually true. Looking at the Bloomberg aggregate bond index from January 2002 to June 2022, the average monthly return was 0.3%, with the standard deviation measured over a 24-month lag of 0.9%. That is to say, roughly two-thirds of the time, the monthly return was within a range of 0.6% to plus 1.2%. However, from July 2022 to March 2024, the standard deviation of monthly returns has actually fricking been 2.0%. A crazy amount for a piece of paper which basically does nothing but guarantee a coupon and a maturity payout.

In examining the causes of this volatility, it's easiest to start with what isn't causing it.

First, it's not due to increased volatility in economic growth. Over the past two years, the macroeconomic outlook has, if anything, become steadier. The unemployment rate has now been in a narrow band between 3.4% and 4.0% (literally all of rdrama.net) for 28 straight months, while real GDP growth appears to have settled into a steady, if somewhat strong, path.

Nor is it due to increased volatility in financial markets in general. This can be seen by the fact that equity market volatility has not risen nearly as much. Between January 2002 and June 2022, the standard deviation of bond market returns measured over a 24-month lag was just 27% of that of the equity market, as measured by the S&P 500 total return index. From July 2022 to March 2024, that ratio has been 37%.

Finally, and most interestingly, it's not due to greater volatility in inflation expectations.”

Measured on a monthly frequency, this expectation has stayed in a narrow band between 2.18% and 2.41% since September 2022. In fact, the standard deviation of inflation expectations measured in this manner has been almost 20% lower since July 2022 than in the prior 17.5 years. Think about it, not since the Invasion of Iraq and the global oil supply shitshow, has inflation expectations been so low.

When you look at more recently at data, CPI's are not doing much anymore. They have kind of bottomed. You being r-slurred, can argue that goods disinflation, which had been very powerful was the main driver of this disinflation trend. Well, no. That is over. Goods disinflation is arguably behind us now. And in some segments, you are seeing goods prices starting to rise again. The monthly core CPI was boosted by rents. Motor vehicle insurance was another driver, surging 2.6%. That was the largest rise since July 2020 and followed a 0.9% gain in February. There were also increases in the prices of apparel and personal care. But prices for used cars and trucks, recreation and new vehicles fell. Make of that data what you will. If you can match that to your portfolio company's earnings and cash out on expiring options, congratulations, you have just made your money like the big boy bucks in The Street.

But obviously, energy is still a question mark. And with what's going on in the Middle East and the most recent moves in rice, cocoa, oil, one can wonder to what extent there might be some pickup in energy inflation and consequently commodity inflation. And finally, and most importantly, obviously, services inflation is very resilient.

This is especially problematic in the US. US isn't China where you can just manufacture bullshit. Everyone knows that services inflation is very sensitive to the job market, to the resilience of the economy, to wages. And on this front, obviously, the job market across both sides of the Atlantic is very strong.

So, you know that the economists at the BLS and Fed think we have reached kind of a plateau.

But then, what is causing higher volatility in bonds, you ask incredulously?

First, Occam's Gillette. That this may be due in part to the huge volume of government debt that needs to be financed today. 20 years ago, treasury debt in the hands of the public was $4.2 trillion or 36% of GDP. Ten years ago, it was $12.6 trillion or 74% of GDP. By the end of last month, it was $27.5 trillion or 99% of GDP. It's quite possible that this extraordinary level of debt is straining global capital markets in a way that just wasn't the case 10 or 20 years ago, leading to more volatility.

This effect may be further amplified by quantitative tightening, which is having the effect of transferring treasury ownership from price insensitive buyers such as the Federal Reserve to much more price sensitive private sector actors. Moreover, this effect could be further increased by the general decline in dealer balance sheets in response to regulation, even as the overall size of the global bond market has increased. Second, higher short-term rates may be contributing to higher bond volatility.

With a normal upward-sloping yield curve, it's easy to assign investors to one of two well-defined camps. Those willing to accept some risk and return for better yields and potential capital gains would invest in long-term bonds, while those willing to sacrifice return for safety would stay at the short end of the curve. However, with overnight rates well above 5% and long rates significantly lower, many long-term investors may be tempted to tactically switch in and out of the short end of the market, adding volatility to bonds. Basically instead of hedging equities with bonds and credit with rates, they are speculating with your pension funds and having fun. (Let them have fun, bigot 🤬🤬!!).

Finally, and most hilariously, today's volatile bond market may reflect hypersensitivity of the Fed. Prior to the most recent inflation surge, Fed officials appeared to be relatively unfazed by small overshoots and undershoots on inflation. However, today we appear to be in an era of zero inflation tolerance on the part of the Fed. Consequently, a very slight overshoot in the March CPI numbers induced an immediate and violent reaction to the bond market, as futures markets almost overnight went from pricing in three full rate cuts in 2024 to barely pricing in two. Even if the inflation environment is relatively steady, any sharp change in expected Fed policy could add to bond market volatility.

Think about it for a second. We have reached metamarkets now. The market's expectations of inflation are tempered but since the Fed's inflation expectations haven't, so the markets are literally pricing in a quasi inflation derivative, ie the expectation of the fed's expectation of the inflation. This is your portfolio manager, Chris Nolan, and he's here to give you a lesson on markets called Inception. 😴😴😴

Then that brings us to the next question, that if, let's say, the Fed waits, is there a risk that given how strong the US economy has been, that there is a chance that inflation might actually slowly creep up instead of going down as it has done, let's say, last year? This is really the key risk here. And when you look back to, for instance, the 1970s, this is really what happened. (Already covered in previous effortpost).

But maybe the truth is, most likely, we have a very different situation. Most likely, the cyclical part of inflation is probably gone now. It has all but disappeared. And in many ways, the western countries are now left with the structural part of this inflation. Structural part, which is clearly the consequence of very long term factors on the economy, demographics, deglobalization, international wars etc. I am not a Political Economist, so I'll just say vote for Biden. Or for Trump. Or just have fun.❤️❤️❤️

Clearly, there's no evidence that Washington is going to reign in fiscal deficits or the regulators will act aggressively to deepen liquidity in treasury markets. While many still expect the Federal Reserve to cut rates later this year (pipe dreams), yield curve inversion could persist for a further year or more.

Nor is there any sign that an inflation-scarred Federal Reserve is going to moderate their reaction to inflation news going forward.

In this supermeta scenario, bond market volatility is here to stay at least for a while, and as a pesky investor you may want to consider if your bond allocations are appropriate for the overall balance of their portfolios. In other words, fricking sell your current bonds and load up on the next offerings because I don't see rate cuts soon.

Sauce:

https://www.bea.gov

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_bill_rates&field_tdr_date_value=2024

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BeigeBook_20240417.pdf

And finally,