Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

like the article suggests though, Starbucks is 9% profit and they are obviously doing damn fine. There's a surplus of those piece of shit loaning agencies near poor areas, I don't believe they are 'struggling' to stay afloat

In a profitability analysis by Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, it was determined that the average profit margin from seven publicly traded payday lending companies (including pawn shops) in the U.S. was 7.63%, and for pure payday lenders it was 3.57%. These averages are less than those of other traditional lending institutions such as credit unions and banks. Comparatively the profit margin of Starbucks for the measured time period was just over 9%, and comparison lenders had an average profit margin of 13.04%. These comparison lenders were mainstream companies: Capital One, GE Capital, HSBC, Money Tree, and American Express Credit.

The profit margin averaged across 7 publically traded payday lending companies which included pawn shops were nearly 50% less and "pure" payday lenders were roughly 75% less profitable than "real" lenders, who have have an average of 13.04%. The payday lending companies may not be "hurting for business", but they aren't nearly as profitable as the "non-predatory" lenders. For every sobstory you hear about someone trying to pay back all this interest, you have a ton who don't pay it back.

Edit: Obviously the piece of that writeup I liked the most was talking about the opportunity for "small business home schools" through such a voucher program as he discussed.

 

[Dak]

http://nautil.us/issue/43/heroes/video-games-are-changing-the-hero

That mirror-image is reminiscent of a video-game avatar, which in effect provides an interactive form of this self-resemblance study. When we play, we absorb visual and auditory sensory information, while also dictating the pace and direction of our experience. Sit in a theater and you cannot ask the projector to stop the film; read a book and you can’t nudge the protagonist down that other alleyway. Tsakiris’ research suggests that such experiences can actually shape our concept of our self.

Right up your alley, Pat.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I don't agree with everything the guy says but he's on to something here

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Alex Jones

 

[Dak]

THEY'RE TURNIN THE FRICKIN FROGS GAY

 

[Dak]

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf

Senate testimony by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

Skeptics have a right.

 

[Dak]

 

[rms]

dude has too many references haha he's gotta spread the love

 

[Dak]

I still think all evidence suggests 9/11 was an "inside job". I just have little clue as to exactly who was inside. I figure in like 50 years it'll all get declassified and everyone will either be too busy plowing with a horse and mule or too busy on their Gigapersonavision 5000s to give a shit. And I'll come back on this board and be all CAN'TSTANDYA about it.

 

[rms]

you on the insurance pay day inside job or create more destruction for a war in the middle east inside job?

 

[Dak]

you on the insurance pay day inside job or create more destruction for a war in the middle east inside job?

Yes.

 

[rms]

ok. you see that vid with kerry admitting they controll detonated da buildings?

 

[Dak]

Apparently missed that.

 

[rms]

been awhile since I looked into this shit but I think this is it;

 

[CiG]

Everybody knows Shaq took down the towers.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf

Senate testimony by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

Skeptics have a right.

Skepticism is an appropriate response to any field of knowledge that has limitations (i.e. all fields of knowledge). Curry's operation is a necessary albeit often overlooked strategy of meta-commentary; she's pulling back and assessing the epistemological limits of studying global climate.

I think she makes excellent points on the political rhetoric surrounding climate change and the IPCC's emphasis on consensus, which results in the downplaying of uncertainty and resultant overconfidence. But Curry herself is still a climate change scientist, and I don't think she would say that her essay is cause for decreasing the funding of climate change science (which is likely to happen under Trump) or refusing to consider various social policies that decrease carbon emissions (also likely to happen).

Skepticism is healthy, but you can be skeptical until the next ice age. At some point we also have to try putting certain research to the test, and the resistance to that isn't coming primarily from alternative research (interestingly enough, Curry isn't providing any alternative research; she's pointing out logical and/or philosophical weaknesses in climate change rhetoric). Along with "manmade climate change" research we also should be looking at alternative explanations or data, which I think is what Curry's arguing. A lot of skeptics don't want that though; they simply want to reduce funding/research altogether.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

been awhile since I looked into this shit but I think this is it;

Maybe he was talking out his ass, who knows.

Also check out this article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-surrounds-loss-records-art-9-11-164719650.html?ref=gs


"Dozens of federal, state and local government agencies were at the site, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Central Intelligence Agency had a clandestine office on the 25th floor of 7 World Trade Center, which also housed the city's emergency command center and an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service."


There you have a plausible explanation for controlled detonation as a reaction to the attack (i.e. "we'd better destroy these sensitive national security documents before terrorists or firefighters find them") rather than part of the attack plan.

 

[Einherjar86]

Based purely on the video, what exactly do people claim the conspiracy is concealing? That they brought the building down intentionally out of fear that letting it fall on its own would cause more damage?

Such malicious intent.

 

[rms]

there is two claims, one that the owners of the towers blew more buildings down in an attempt to get more insurance money. the second being that there wasn't really a fear of them causing more mayhem and blowing down the towers was an attempt to deceive the public into getting into an oil war.

that's why there's the 'jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams' thing

 

[Dak]

I think there can be multiple reasons, it doesn't have to be just one. Grant offers the postulate that maybe the buildings were rigged years in advance as a security protocol. Who knows? But the official narrative is obvious bunk just on the face of publicly available and accepted evidence.