__derek__

It seems like an awkward rephrasing of an awkwardly-worded statement:

> Build on efforts to electrify the city vehicle fleet by requiring the 100,000-plus high-volume for-hire vehicles to do the same — requiring them, with the support of Uber and Lyft, to be zero-emissions by 2030, with no new costs for individual drivers;

[1]: https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/063-23/mayor-ad...

That kind of review caused a stir for Apple and Amazon, leading both to curtail the practice.[1]

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/02/apple-s...

Previously:

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34513802

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34514209

For the most part, American law school professors are actual lawyers with hard experience in their area of expertise. That appears to be the case for Bankman-Fried's parents.

The Simpsons already did it.[1]

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8Vpei_UpQ

They're lawyers and law professors, not humanities academics.

The blog-post argues against Wall Street analysts' behavior, but misapplies "Friedman Doctrine" as a label for it. Friedman didn't specify a time-frame because it's the life-time of the corporation. He mentions "long run interest" and alludes to future shareholders:

> And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders, customers’ or employes’ money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.)

FWIW, I think the actual essay could appeal to folks who are skeptical of big-company CEOs because it (a) suggests that governments should stop incentivizing them to influence society and (b) implies that governments should tax directly to fund these social aims rather than asking CEOs to spend company money on them.

That's a bingo.

On the bright side, Coinbase launched a lot of high-value new products during the last two years that will help the company thrive and grow in the coming years.

Mastodon instances are the (latest) new monorail.[1]

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGg5rfBfWT4

I honestly don't know!

From the IRS memo[1] linked in your other comment, the fact that "Cryptocurrency B continued to be traded on at least one cryptocurrency exchange" is relevant to the conclusion that it still has a value. But unsellable NFTs are by definition not trading anywhere, right? So, ironically, the existence of a service like this might provide a price floor for all NFTs.

[1]: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/202302011.pdf

Couldn't one declare the NFTs worthless and still claim the loss?[1] This seems more like a way for the creators of this site (Full Name, Full Name, and Full Name)[2] to scavenge a bunch of NFTs on the cheap. Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily.

[1]: https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8949#en_US_2022_publink100...

[2]: https://www.unsellablenfts.com/about-us

Small nit: the suit in TFA is from the DOJ, not the FTC.

I think that was clear from the context of the thread, where OP alluded to an in-house Uber, and I noted that the model was more similar to the local delivery services than to Uber per se.

Anyway: Amazon Flex drivers actually did handle delivery for Amazon Restaurants, which was a direct competitor to Uber Eats, DoorDash, GrubHub, Caviar, etc.

It seems like payments is traveling the inverse of the shipping/delivery route: first build in-house, then add on other fulfillment partners that are able to handle certain payments better.

Amazon Flex. It's more like Uber Eats or DoorDash.

Satya and other top executives attended the concert, and they were also involved in the layoffs. In that one group, at least, we could expect some level of synchronization.

That's as it should be. As soon as people start with the buzzwords, I tune out.

Davos is officially sanctioned corruption for oligarchs, but the organization is also apparently a cult of personality that may not survive Klaus Schwab, so maybe it will just go away.[1]

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/18/mutiny-erup...

An example of this is the ACA subsidy cliff, which is now suspended through 2025.[1]

[1]: https://thefinancebuff.com/stay-under-obamacare-premium-subs...

Yes. One un-damned company thus far is Apple:[1]

> From its fiscal year-end in September 2019 to September 2022, Apple’s workforce grew by about 20% to approximately 164,000 full-time employees. Meanwhile, over roughly the same period, the employee count at Amazon doubled, Microsoft’s rose 53%, Google parent Alphabet Inc.’s increased 57% and Facebook owner Meta’s ballooned 94%.

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-apple-has-so-far-avoided-la...

Yes, there was pull-forward growth in e-commerce. Using this from Benedict Evans in 2021 because it has numbers and a good graph:[1]

> The traditional way to think about ecommerce penetration is to look at share of total retail sales, and then deduct things like car repair, gasoline and restaurants - to get to ‘addressable retail’. On that basis, US ecommerce was at 16% penetration at the end of 2019 and increased to 20% or so in 2020, adding 12-18 months of growth in a year.

[1]: https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2021/5/29/boxes-truc...

No, I don't believe that they greatly improved their crystal ball performance since July, when the now-infamous pay packages were still being doled out. Amazon started to tighten the belt a little earlier when it realized that it had too much FC capacity, but it was still rushing to add capacity as recently as July 2021.[1]

[1]: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/amazon-earnings-logisti...

That one appears to be earnest, but Scaled Agile DevOps is definitely parody.[1]

[1]: https://scaledagiledevops.com/

My first SDE job was in a company with a dedicated Scrum Master role, and they were basically the lubricant to make Agile/Scrum teams fit into what was essentially a waterfall environment. It's roughly a TPM in Big Tech, but without those companies as industry peers for setting comp.

> Especially to Sequoia, which felt like they were behind in crypto investments (while a16z was getting into all the "big winners").

Sequoia had other peers that resisted this temptation, though, so the "blame ZIRP" argument isn't sufficient.

Re: #2, as Matt Levine likes to say, everything is securities fraud. All the stuff that FTX did before was probably illegal, but it was in a grey area without a particular regulator. Once it became clear that FTX falsely claimed to investors that it had effective risk controls, didn't misuse/steal customer funds, and wasn't operating a giant Ponzi scheme, it moved squarely into the SEC's remit.

> Would it not make sense to set rates somewhere in that window (roughly 2-4%) and stop messing with them? For other countries, scale rates accordingly.

That alone wouldn't work because inflation is affected by factors beyond interest rates, but this is basically a part of Modern Monetary Theory: set short-term interest rates at a fixed price, then use other levers to push inflation back to target.

IMO, a more compelling alternative to the current system is Nominal GDP Targeting.[1][2]

[1]: https://www.mercatus.org/research/research-papers/case-nomin...

[2]: https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/nominal-gdp...

Mimetic desire

This parenthetical seems unnecessary:

> Some basic customer information (nearly all of which is the type widely available in marketing databases or directories) was obtained, including name, billing address, email, phone number, date of birth, account number, and information such as the number of lines on the account and service plan features.

I wonder if "service plan features" includes whether a customer has enabled the Account Takeover Protection feature that's supposed to guard against SIM-swapping.

[1]: https://www.t-mobile.com/news/business/customer-information