Go ahead and reread what a land value tax is

yeah chief I'm gonna need you to google "stock borrow rate" and get back to me when you've made it through the investopedia page

yes, that is how journalism works.

go ahead and google "co2 half-life in atmosphere" and "cumulative co2 emissions over time"

if someone bids 10000000 shares for mid, and I hit their bid, who provided the liquidity?

You can argue about this philosophically, but if you talk to literally anyone in the industry, they will understand that

- "taking liquidity" is taking existing orders off the orderbook and

- "making [liquidity]" is opening new orders that rest on the orderbook

It's the terminology of the industry.

To add on your comment: I don't even think the philosophical discussion makes sense.

At the end of the day, what counts as the truth is how much fees you pay when sending a limit order that immediately crosses.

And the answer, for every single market on the planet, is "you pay taker fees". Period.

Most futures markets you pay both sides.

Some equity venues are pay both sides. Others are “reverse” provider pays.

Even in the markets that have fees on both sides, the maker fees are less than taker fees in almost all cases.

I don’t think that’s correct

CME worlds largest futures exchange symmetrical fees

https://www.cmegroup.com/company/files/cme-fee-schedule-2023...

Modern cars are much safer than cars of even 10 years ago

For their occupants, maybe! It's getting harder and harder to see over the front hood. My wife, standing straight, is invisible to a new F150.

It’s so wild to me. It performs objectively worse when that high, and adds no tangible benefit outside of ego, or literally looking down upon other drivers. Yet they have all gone that way to cater to the preferences of US consumers.

An F150 is only a car to USAmericans, to the rest of the world, it's a truck.

My neighbor has one, sometimes it feels like a train.

Depends. Some cars have really good pedestrian detection and will stop automatically. But yes, some of those full size pickups and SUVs have a pretty large front blind spot.

Yet I don't feel safer because people have to take their eyes off the road to adjust their AC.

You're talking about a city of 10+ million people.

if walker is mistaken about numerous small factual details, what makes you confident he's correct about anything meaningful?

Not exactly a knockdown argument, but: if he was wrong about "something meaningful", Guzey probably would have added it to his list.

More generally, if you make a claim and someone claims you're entirely wrong, it should be surprising if they don't attack the parts you consider meaningful. If they wanted to publicly demonstrate your incorrectness, why wouldn't they attack the important parts? Either they can't, or they chose not to, but the latter doesn't match the apparent motivations.

It’s often easier to rigorously disprove the small claims than big ones. Especially when the books author insinuates things rather than actually make bold claims.

Making a long list of everything they said that we don’t have evidence for isn’t really debunking anything. After all a broken clock may occasionally show the correct time. But showing some specific study was misinterpreted or wrong is far more direct.

With "something meaningful", I'm using the parent's terminology. If Guzey has written arguments against non-meaningful stuff, I don't think that's evidence for the meaningful stuff being wrong. That's about the end of my stance; I definitely don't have the info or background knowledge (or effort!) to evaluate either the book or the response on technical merits.

My mistake. When you said:

> if he was wrong about "something meaningful", Guzey probably would have added it to his list.

I thought you were agreeing with the root comment that the things Guzey pointed out aren't meaningful.

Here is the last paragraph of the introduction:

> Any book of Why We Sleep’s length is bound to contain some factual errors. Therefore, to avoid potential concerns about cherry-picking the few inaccuracies scattered throughout, in this essay, I’m going to highlight the five most egregious scientific and factual errors Walker makes in Chapter 1 of the book. This chapter contains 10 pages and constitutes less than 4% of the book by the total word count.

I know, I read it, and two possibilities suggest themselves:

1. There are many many more errors in the book, and the Guzey, not being very well organized, chose to highlight the fact that the author was wrong about cancer and lifespan (who isn't), and a couple facts not really related to the main point.

2. Despite claims to the contrary, Guzey is cherry-picking the few inaccuracies.

> Maybe twitter is a unique case because of other factors - Elon?

really, you think that a rapid change of leadership preceded by an extended legal battle is MAYBE a unique situation? Elon is very clearly one of the most erratic ceos of a 10b+ public company right now

customers and employees are uncertain about the future because the ceo and controlling shareholder seems to change his mind every day about twitter's product, company culture, and general philosophy every single day. if he laid off nobody it would still be mayhem.

You are strengthening their point though. It now becomes:

You can absolutely find a buyer instantly! At about the same price it traded for five minutes ago, actually scratch that, it even worse, it is that price MINUS SLIPPAGE! Just not at the price you need it to be.