floor2

Except, that's how a bank works.

The money in your checking account or savings account isn't sitting in a vault, it's being loaned out to other customers of the bank immediately. But when you put money in an FDIC-insured bank account, you have the US Government guaranteeing that you'll get your money back even if the bank's investments of your money go bankrupt. Also, there's a complex set of regulated and audited independent counterparties with transparency and collateral agreements to separate custody, trade settlement, etc.

When you put money into a Bahamas based entity that is simultaneously the bank, exchange, broker, and hedgefund, you get none of these things, and so you just have to wait until it collapses and then hope to get your money back after bankruptcy court in a few years.

Well for starters, outside of the US financial regulatory system.

They were operating a shadow bank and unregulated securities exchange in the Bahamas and Hong Kong.

The media and regulators were willing to take a sympathetic view to all of the openly illegal banking and securities violations while times were good, but they were performing a highline act with no safety net the whole time.

In the future those kids are also going to have the ability to buy alcohol, tobacco, junk food, weapons, motorcycles, fireworks, etc.

It's looking more and more like we should be putting phones into a similar category. Children should likely be more protected against the harms of phones until they have developed more to have a greater ability to use them safely.

Calling it a "moral panic" feels almost offensively wrong to me.

McDonald's is very legitimately a serious problem in America today. Obesity and related conditions- Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, etc are at mind boggling epidemic levels. Americans today are living shorter, sicker lives than their parents despite tremendous improvements in medicine, working safety, automobile safety and less smoking almost entirely due to obesity related conditions. Childhood obesity is setting millions of children down a path of suffering before they're old enough to understand that they're being harmed or having the agency and autonomy to correct it.

This isn't a "moral panic" over something harmless like kids playing dungeons and dragons or listening to rock and roll, this is arguably the largest health and wellbeing concern in America today. If anything, as a society we probably have too much moral panic about stigmatized things like opioids and guns that impact a pretty small percent of people and have not enough concern about the unfortunately normalized things like 3/4ths of people being overweight and 4/10 being obese.

This thread is fascinating for highlighting that what seems normal to one person seems rare to another.

I'm not sure I know a single "daily drinker". Even the people who had reputations as being heavy drinkers I don't think drank every day. Drinking daily sounds like something someone in recovery would talk about as the final stage of their spiral towards rock bottom before they went to rehab, not something I'd expect 1 in 20 people to be doing.

But maybe I'm underestimating how many people have one glass of wine with dinner or one beer after work.

I can easily afford a new vehicle, but I have no desire to buy any of the new models full of touch-screens, data collectors and other digital junk that I don't want.

I'm holding out hoping some manufacturer will rebel against the trend and make a car with real door handles, a physical key, knobs and buttons for all controls, etc.

I'm not paying a monthly subscription fee for heated seats and I don't want my car to not start because it doesn't have an internet connection.

Literally 100% of published papers in psychology, sociology and related fields will have "editorializing" equal or greater to the line you quoted. This one likely only stood out to you because it went against your beliefs while others align to them, or because you don't regularly read such publications to be familiar with norms.

Unions made Detroit a world-leading city and made the American auto industry a leader in productivity and profitability.

Teacher unions have made the American public education system the envy of the world.

Airline unions have made flying safe, smooth, affordable and reliable.

Police and prison guard unions have made our legal and penal system trustworthy, fair and equitable.

I look forward to continuing the excellent track record of American unions improving everything for everyone.

> I know the logic behind it (so you know how much tax you’re paying)

I always understood it to be the opposite- so that the varying price for the same thing by location was hidden from consumers.

A nationwide chain can advertise that a product is $X, even though their customers will pay anywhere from zero additional tax (Alaska, Delaware) to over 11% additional tax (California, Arizona, Illinois). See https://www.avalara.com/taxrates/en/state-rates.html for how widely it can range by location.

Humans are hierarchical social creatures who crave respect, prestige, admiration, etc. Inflating job titles is an easy way to increase the value of the job to the worker by giving them more social capital.

People will stretch titles as much as possible. "Senior" engineers who have 2 years of experience after a coding bootcamp. "Managers" and "Directors" in marketing/HR/finance/etc who are 24 years old and have no managerial responsibility. Nurse practitioners who want to call themselves "doctors".

In this case "engineer" is the stretch title that provides that value.

Take the chat logs from any organization, no matter how perfectly rule-abiding, pure and saintly and a prosecutor or adversarial lawyer will be able to find snippets of text that can be taken out of context to make them look bad.

Chats, emails, zoom calls, in-person conversations, etc all make sense to be ephemeral. Official company documents published by HR, official specifications, advertisements, etc make sense to be kept long-term.

You're on a forum with literally millions of visitors from all over the world, but with comments on any given article from maybe 100 people.

There could be tens of thousands of "rail against smart tv" users and tens of thousands of "drool over smart cars" users, without there being even a single hypocritical poster who was in both groups.

> Most importantly, he let people trade shady shitcoins but never stole customer funds

This undersells his crimes and overstates SBFs. The head of compliance for Binance sent a freakin text message to a peer saying "We’re operating an unlicensed broker in the US, bro" along with numerous communications about intentionally facilitating money laundering, sanctions evasions and a host of other securities law violations.

SBF, based on what was published in Michael Lewis' "Going Infinite", didn't really steal customer funds, he just did a negligently bad job of running the bank of crypto. When you put money into your checking account, the bank doesn't hold it in a vault, they re-lend it out as mortgages and car loans and small business loans. They just do it competently, and under the scrutiny of bank regulators and insurers. FTX was an unregulated crypto bank in the bahamas that did conceptually the same thing, just without any prudent risk management, due diligence or even reliable record keeping. But the customers were cool with that, because crypto and number go up.

Maybe this is an upside to the looming AI-taking-jobs issue.

I bet a ton of these bureaucratic approve/deny/request-more-information workflows in current EMR systems will be replaced by AI in a few years, putting the people out of work.

Once AI eats their jobs, less resistance to changing the system.

> Voters need to wake up and recognize that they need to pay for solutions

I'm a middle-class nobody from a poor background, I own a single-story 3-bedroom, 2 bathroom house. I pay $18,000 a year in property taxes on my house. I pay an additional 8.5% sales tax on everything I buy locally. I pay tens of thousands of dollars every year in income taxes.

Just how much more do I need to pay? Why should we trust that giving the government even more money will solve the problem, when every previous experience shows that they spend massively while barely impacting the problem?

Says who, or why not?

This seems like an obvious case of governmental corruption if the answer is "some law that 99.999% of people are harmed by, but makes a handful of hollywood billionaires richer".

If the current laws are bad (and they are) we should get rid of them with more consumer friendly ones. If congress is too corrupt to pass those laws, we as citizens should nullify them by collectively refusing to enforce them, whether as jurors, prosecutors, or employees of media or telecom companies.

Eh, the "tech people" who've been laid off range everything from graphic designers to project managers to marketing, sales, HR etc, almost none of whom have any skill overlap with the engineers, mathematicians and scientists building AI.

There are a small number of CS-degree holding software engineers or statistical expert data scientists who can pivot into AI with a fairly direct application of their existing education and experience, but the vast majority of people who were laid off from "tech companies" do not have that background.

Medical school debt seems like the least compelling example given how much doctors get paid.

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/alternate/radiologist... The median radiologist is making $459k. The bottom 10% is still making $344k. So you could finish med school, be the lowest-paid radiologist in your class, and pay off your debt in like 2 years if you wanted.

A less lucrative specialty still makes the debt no big deal. If you're making $250k as a family doctor, you're still living comfortably after making your debt payments.

The job market for people with a bachelors in Biology or Chemistry is pretty lousy. Lots of people end up doing repetitive lab work for low pay. Going to graduate school is essentially required to get a "good" job in the field.

Reminder- there is no such thing as "cancelling student debt". The money was borrowed and spent, we're just moving the debt from the people who took it out and benefited from it, to other unrelated taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.

The student who made all the prudent decisions- lived on cheap groceries, while attending a low-cost state school to major in something employable like nursing or accounting now gets saddled with the debt from the student who got a basketweaving degree from a private liberal arts school while ordering UberEats every day.

The government should claw back the money from the universities that overcharged and failed to provide value (as they have done in a few extreme cases against for-profit scam colleges) but it's frustratingly unjust to see people who made frugal decisions be forced to pay for others who didn't.

Except the actual human being who resembles the deepfake image isn't actually involved at all.

People are acting like a "deepfake of a person" is something different than a drawing, painting, song, poem or any other artistic creation inspired by, based on, or with elements drawn from a real person.

"If someone is deepfaking you" is such a weird imaginary problem. Someone might be imagining you. Someone might see you in a coffee shop while writing a screenplay and use the outfit you're wearing to describe a character in their story. Who cares?

If someone is committing fraud by trying to pass off a deepfake as a real photo, then we already have laws around fraud, defamation, harassment to cover that. If someone makes a deepfake that looks similar to a real person for their own amusement, that's no different than writing fan-fiction or sketching in a notebook.

I'm pretty sure this was just trolling, but, I'm 100% ok with nurses buying "half million dollar homes". That's just what a house costs in most places a nurse would live.

MDs may be overpaid and there are a lot of problems with how residency works in the US (both in terms of too-few residents and abusive treatment of the few who get in) but nurses are absolutely not overpaid for the work they do.

Please don't hate "these people" or any general group of people.

For starters, many of the counties that "vote for the Republicans" are like 60-40 or 70-30 splits, so somewhere between a third and a half of the people living in those areas voted Democrat. And of course, many don't vote at all if they know their state is locked in for a given candidate regardless.

Second, there are myriad issues that due to America's 2-party system ultimately get grouped into relatively arbitrary bundles. If you have to choose between two bad options, you might choose the one that's less immediately bad or less guaranteed bad or less severely bad, even knowing that the alternative is future-bad, maybe-bad or slightly-bad.

Third, just have sympathy for all people in all walks of life. Especially the marginalized. You likely don't have an understanding of their day to day struggles or how those inform their decisions and coping mechanisms, and even if you are right and they are wrong, please take a moment to consider how your privileges may give you the education, time, energy, resources and context to come to different conclusions than other people.

Maybe you'd have more luck if you tried to address the specific problems with copyright law, rather than attack the massively larger, mostly unrelated and somewhat abstract and nebulous concept of "capitalism".

You could just as well argue that since these laws were created under democracy, that this is the unacceptable face of democracy.

We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We can get a broad coalition of people from diverse backgrounds and beliefs to agree that the current copyright laws need to be changed, but tying that to extremist political stances works against that progress.

I suspect that depends on where you're looking.

The overall trend line of more carbon emissions -> more heat -> less snow makes sense, but the complexities of terrain can create local conditions that can counterintuitively have a certain spot on the globe end up with more snow due to climate change. This can happen due to things like warmer oceans and warmer air off coast increasing precipitation, as snowfall, in mountains that are hundreds of miles inland.

Seems like an obvious case of "shades of grey" vs a binary thing.

Most people don't blatantly lie and claim they were the CEO of Apple. But does a random mid-level engineer at Apple slightly exaggerate their role on a team during an interview? Subjective, but likely very common.

Plus, many jobs are almost intractable to appropriately assign value to. If you were one of 5 people pitching a deal to a company, and it works, who's to say which person was the key to success? All 5 people might truly believe that they were the reason the deal closed and take credit for it in future interviews.

But this misses the fact that a huge, huge percent of the cost is going to luxuries and things that have no benefit to 99% of students.

The dorms, gyms, cafeterias and student centers built in the last decade are luxurious spaces compared to prior decades. Perfectly good buildings are torn down and rebuilt so that a new donor can put their name on the building. Budgets for sports, clubs, and other programs have skyrocketed.

If you were to start a new school from scratch and ask the question "How can we give students the best education for a reasonable price?" you could do so with a university with 1/10th the headcount of staff and a correspondingly lower tuition.

You just wouldn't have a 15-person committee meeting weekly to decide if the company the university hired to perform an audit of the mission statements of the companies the university hired to provide consulting services to the student affairs staffers were properly recorded in the new document management system that was transferred from the homegrown IT solution to the new vendor.

No that's not the better question.

If private universities are truly spending so irresponsibly and profligately that their sticker price isn't covering their expenses, then their entire administration should be thrown out and replaced. It's only incompetence or corruption that could excuse such costs.

I was psychologically harmed reading this comment. Please do not post on HN again. To continue to do so is to do violence against me.

Maybe don't send your money to an unregulated startup in the Bahamas to gamble on cryptocurrencies if losing that money is going to cause you to commit suicide?

The "victims" knew they were intentionally avoiding government oversight of securities law, banking regulators, etc. When they lost money we should have collectively shrugged our shoulders and said that's the risk they chose to take.