https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/us-govt-irani...
6,107 karma · joined February 3, 2016
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/us-govt-irani...
The SEC doesn’t get a vote.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-faste...
“The respondent companies are offering something more than fee simple interests in land…they are offering an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of a large citrus fruit enterprise.”
https://recaldelaw.com/do-security-regulations-cover-real-es...
They’re releasing their editors first. Just like they did the last time. Obviously.
Made by GitHub.
Second, just so we’re clear is your point that the holders of that $6B-$15B of useless paper won’t care because it’s less than $150B? At the end of the day, you don’t care what percent of the bag you’re holding, just that you’re holding it.
Is everyone getting hurt ideal? No. But that’s a different question than is it justice.
IMO this is what happened during 2008. The government tried to minimize harm at the expense of justice, and people are angry because they don’t realize how bad it could have been.
That is incorrect, spite is seeking the deliberate harm of another. It’s possible for spite to include hurting yourself to inflict it, but that’s not in any way necessary.
Being an athlete isn’t particularly different than getting a minor or a dual major. Just because there’s sweating involved doesn’t make it not a scholarly pursuit, we should stop being such gatekeepers.
It would also be mind blowing to me for someone whose job is to handle bank failures to not have a playbook for them. I know that FEMA has a truly impressive library of disaster playbooks in their analogous role.
McDonald’s is our society’s revealed preference.
If you know you have a 10-year horizon, by all means buy treasuries instead of depositing at a bank.
As to your strange fallacy paragraph, I’m not sure what you mean by imperfect enforcement. Perhaps you should explain in an amicus brief to the courts that decided those banners are compliant?
Very few of them do. Typically it’s “accept” and “x”.
> why does there exist GDPR-compliant websites without the pop-up dialogs?
Because GDPR doesn’t make those other sites have them. It’s perfectly possible for GDPR to force some websites to have popups and not force others to. It’s still GDPR forcing the ones that it forces to do the thing it’s forcing them to do.
> But the GDPR addressed those flaws.
As you can clearly see from being on the internet for more than about 5 minutes, it in fact does not.
This is not a comment on GDPR one way or the other; my point is that we shouldn’t engage in political word games to try and avoid the inevitable consequences of actions.
“Priced in” has a very specific meaning, it’s not a generic term for being aware that something might happen.