Yeah, they are definitely gunning for my tiny YouTube channel. They’ll probably insist that I give them all of the proceeds. (The video is 100% copyright free, fyi)

I think it's awesome you're creating content, DJ. Keep it up, and hope you find it really fulfilling.

---

Hey wanna talk about insurance? lol. I don't know if Houston is considered high-risk or disaster-prone for insurance companies but I was reading something today that got me really worried for home-owners in the future, in some areas.

So you probably heard but home insurance insurers in the US had their worst loss ever in 2023. Net loss of 15.2 billion which is DOUBLE the 2022 figure. These are for-profit businesses so if you're not expecting major changes, you're kidding yourself.

There's a toxic mix of stuff all happening at once too:
- more natural disasters
- more population growth in high risk areas
- inflation which is causing escalating construction costs

So naturally insurers will obviously raise prices, but I think they'll do more than that. I think some of them might actually exit disaster-prone regions as rating agency AM Best said that home insurance is not likely to be profitable in the near term. YIKES. That's a REALLY scary thing for a rating agency to say because it means investors are gonna drop insurers like a g/f with a mild mental disorder.

The rating agency thing is going to make BoD's and shareholders demand action.

In Canada, it's illegal for an insurer to refuse to provide auto insurance, even to a high risk individual (they're simply allowed to cap them at the max premium, which used to be 5k for a regular car). But there's no regulatory obligation to provide home insurance.

So if insurers suddenly pull out the rug from home owners in certain areas, what's to be done? You basically gotta sell your house FAST, no? Cuz if anything happens, you're screwed. But how the HELL do you sell when a mortgage company will 100% require the buyer to have home insurance??

Yikes indeed. Very scary. I wonder if smart or conservative people will take proactive action. And hence, why I'm writing this for DJ and our Cali friends.


---

Speaking of Cali, I bet LA organizers are looking carefully at the coordinated act of sabotage in Paris where fiber optic cables in lots of regions were cut, which slowed the high-speed rail network during the olympics (one of the ways athletes are moving around).

Beyond knowing that I’m required to carry insurance for my home loan, I don’t really know much about these things - obviously I understand the math of insurance, but that’s not what I mean. Honestly, I can’t speak for anywhere else, but there are entire areas of Houston that should NOT be insurable, at least against floods. I don’t think they are likely to pull other types of insurance, here. There’s not really any good reasons to do so, but I’m no expert on this stuff.

I'm sure they will sure intel on it. The way it happens here is that the Olympics get termed as a "National Special Security Event" which means that: When directed by the President, the United States Secret Service is authorized to participate, under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at special events of national significance, as determined by the President.


Typical NSSE security measures include:

Interagency coordination and interoperability
Heavy police (days off and leaves may be canceled) and often National Guard presence
Police dogs for bomb detection
Surveillance
WMD detection, mitigation, and decontamination
Sharpshooters and other tactical capabilities
Flight restrictions around the area
United States Coast Guard patrols
Increased railroad security
Extensive road closures
When applicable members of Joint Task Force - Civil Support and the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) are deployed

So they'll have top-notch security on basically everything, except of course low-slope roofs with easy lines of sight... got it.

Cucho, Melissa (half of our beach volleyball team) is Chilean. Her dad is 1st Gen and is at all the games, it’s awesome

Just watched women’s judo gold medal watch. Canada vs Korea

We won but it was the most boring thing I’ve ever seen. It’s a fighting sport and there was more spirited fighting in our last soccer match

I read an article about homeowners insurance last year about how agencies are pulling out of Florida due to hurricane and California due to wildfires.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aaa-insura ... onrenewal/

Idk what's going to happen but in a dream scenario it brings the cost of housing down. Do Cheaper houses = Cheaper insurance? Idk, you tell me

in more news from "The road to world war 3"™: Erdogan says Turkey might enter Israel to help Palestinians

doubtfully he would really do anything more than bellow

Cheaper houses doesn’t real have any effect on the cost of insurance cuz the only thing that affects reconstruction costs is inflation, not real estate prices

Also, if I’m following American capitalism correctly, fewer insurers should result in higher prices

Cuz what are policyholders going to do? Nothing


—-

Nighthawk, your gymnast guy on the pommel horse is INSANE

Hope your boys get bronze, nighthawk. Good luck!

First time Canada has a team that makes final 8 but we’ve got no chance lol

//-

If we could finish 6th that would be a huge win for our first Olympic appearance

—-

Man these Chinese gymnasts are insane. All perfection and zero emotion after. Even the Japanese guys smile when they nail a dismount but these Chinese fellas are all biz

Hey looks like maybe the US might get bronze, that would be great

We’ve dropped to 8 lol. Ah well, stupid pommel horse. It’s TOO HARD

—-

Oh nice US took 3rd.

I noticed something, when the US, UK, Canada and Japan are competing, the big crowd cheers a lot. But when China competes, no one cheers

I feel bad for those guys

I seriously can't believe no one has commented on what might be the smartest most "common sense" proposal from any President in my recent memory.

I guess my only comment is that I don’t think any of that will happen.

Taking it seriously,

No one above should happen.

Term limits should not happen.

Code of conduct should happen.

I feel super naive that I didn’t know you could buy those guys


Al Capone used to do that stuff and he was basically a real life supervillain.

And now it’s… accepted practice?

Same

Excuse me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the impression that you are having partisan issues with your Supreme Court.

I'm not saying that Biden's proposal is the solution you need, but it seems to me that justice is one of the few things that hold the whole system together. It's in your best interest to avoid the kind of imbalance that I believe is happening at the moment, especially if Republicans, who in most countries couldn't even be categorized as center-right, are now a cult to Trump... A frigging convicted felon.

Would you be willing to address that issue in any way?

I think that's what Biden is trying to do. Reduce the damage that ONE president can have a multi-generational effect on the supreme court and weigh law/policy on one side for longer than is reasonable

let me address the above:
1) partisan issues - yes, but this is nothing new. The right would have said the same thing for 50+ years. This is their country too, like it or not.
2) justice continues to hold the whole system together. I'm not sure why you think that's changed.
3) I think you may be defining imbalance as "things that you don't like happen." That's not how I'd define imbalance.



We live in a fairly old, and fairly successful constitutional democracy. Are we sure we want to change it simply because a SCOTUS judgement that was deeply unpopular with half of the US has been reversed, making the other half of the US unhappy? Or are we specifically worried about Trump? because that's a right now issue, and these changes to SCOTUS won't impact that issue (I don't think SCOTUS solutions will be fast enough), he'll be long dead (and either king, or nothing).

________

Biden could have tried the nuclear option, adding more justices, but instead he wants to change the rules. I don't think he could have accomplished the former, and I'm pretty sure he'll fail at the latter too.

I don’t see how you solve any partisan issues with term limits. Speeding up the cycle doesn’t change the cycle itself.

I prefer lifetime appointments because different from politicians, SC justices aren’t in service of the people theyre in service to the constitution. Dynamic vs static

Agreed.

The only real issue we have right now with SCOTUS, from what I can tell, is that one of the justices shouldn't be there: Clarence Thomas. Term limits would remove him, sure (so would impeachment, not that that will ever happen), but then who replaces him? It would likely be someone better, but it could just as easily be someone worse.