12,198 karma · joined May 1, 2014
“Today’s decision will test and potentially reverse the gains in fairness, efficiency and transparency that have been made to our markets over the last decade. We must be vigilant to identify unintended consequences, and firm in our commitment to equitable and consistent treatment for all investors.” [1]
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sec-iex-idUSKCN0Z32NM
"Their funding model is strictly listener supported, and it's working. The premise being that keeping outside influences away from content development gives listeners untainted news, opinion and entertainment... they refer to it as a "value-for-value" proposition -- listen to the show, if you get something worthwhile from it make a donation. This model should change the face of podcasting.
More and more independent podcasters will probably take note of this new model, and they should. Open, unsullied content creation and delivery should be the goal of everyone in the media -- a free exchange of ideas, opinions and content is the cornerstone of a free internet and a free society.
Podcasting has always been a medium searching for a successful funding model. Curry was a pioneer in getting podcasters to band together to try and attract funding from advertisers and sponsors. Curry started a couple of companies to support this model -- he would probably be the first to admit that the main-stream media model is not the best one for podcasting... but his constant tinkering and experimentation with the medium he created is starting to pay off. Curry and Dvorak may be the first "professional" podcasters to make a living doing a show that is truly independent, insightful and listener supported."
[1] http://www.noagendashow.com/
[2] http://www.examiner.com/article/no-agenda-makes-podcasting-r...
Basically it shows Snowden taking the cameras and microphones out of an iPhone.
"Slander is illegal, but hard to prove. And if you lose your case in court, it can be super-expensive. You’ll end up paying your own court fees and those of your opponent. In other words, the government can’t help you if someone slanders you in public. You’re sort of on your own.
So when publications such as Huffington Post, Salon, or Gawker come after me with out-of-context claims of outragism – as they have – I can fight back as a citizen, within the laws of the land, but that’s all I have going for me.
In my case, I do what I can do (persuasion) to destroy those publications out of a sense of both revenge and making the world a better place. Those two incentives work together great. And given time, I could have taken out Gawker on my own. You never would have seen where the bullet came from. All you would know is that fewer people went to the site, for some reason.
But apparently I won’t need to work so hard to take down Gawker. We just learned that billionaire Peter Thiel is secretly – until now – bankrolling various lawsuits against Gawker, including the famous Hulk Hogan case that will probably break them. And it should.
Thiel’s play – assuming it is true – is totally legal. Thiel just makes sure the lawyers get paid whether they win or lose. Like me, I assume he is acting out of a combination of revenge and a desire to make the world a better place.
This is another example in which I think citizens are taking a more active role in fixing the world when government isn’t the right tool for the job. There’s something in the air now – maybe because of Trump – that feels intensely American. And by that I mean not waiting around for someone (such as the government) to fix your problem. We’re a nation of problem-solvers. I would argue that problem-solving is the most basic American character trait.
You need something invented? We’re on it.
You need a dictator removed? Can do.
You need economic stability in the world? Working on it!
Don’t like having a king? We can design a better system.
At the moment, citizens see our government as defective and they see Donald Trump as a wrecking ball. Step one: Demolition.
Step two is the scary part. What happens when you break the government? Do we devolve into chaos, anarchy, or dictatorship? Well, that might happen to some countries. In America, when stuff is broken, we fix it. And if it ain’t broken, we’ll break it anyway, just to fix it better. That’s sort of our thing. And we’re good at it.
I predict we’re going to see a wave of citizen involvement that is unprecedented. People everywhere (especially billionaires) are seeing that government can’t do everything. So they are stepping in. Gates is fixing Africa and whatnot. Thiel is planning floating cities to solve some types of immigration issues and more. And Mark Cuban probably has some good work ahead of him.
Let’s solve some problems. It’s what we do."
[1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144908299636/citizen-government
Not to imply that people who are considered attractive can't be creepy -- but they do get more leeway.
It's more socially acceptable for unattractive yet wealthy/high-status people to perform such behaviors, as this can be explained by considering them "eccentric" or "confident" rather than "weird" or "creepy".
An excellent explainer can be found at http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/What-Every-Retail-Investor-Needs-...
[1] http://www.fuw.ch/article/die-angst-der-snb-vor-dem-eigenen-...
The BoJ is not the only central bank doing such purchases -- the Swiss National Bank similarly owns over $100B in equities. [2]
In addition, central banks actively trade S&P 500 futures on Globex. [3]
[1] http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Tokyo-Market/BOJs-stock-portf...
[2] http://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form+13F-HR+Swiss+N...
[3] https://www.cmegroup.com/company/membership/files/CBIPFAQ.pd...
"Today we announced a settlement in two important class-action lawsuits: O’Connor (California) and Yucesoy (Massachusetts). The key issue at stake in both cases is whether drivers using the Uber app should be classified as independent contractors or employees.
As part of this settlement, which covers all classification claims involving Uber in California and Massachusetts, the two sides have agreed that:
* Drivers will remain independent contractors, not employees;
* Uber will pay $84 million to the plaintiffs. There will be a second payment of $16 million if Uber goes public and our valuation increases one and a half times from our December 2015 financing valuation within the first year of an IPO;
* Uber will provide drivers with more information about their individual rating and how it compares with their peers. Uber will also introduce a policy explaining the circumstances under which we ban drivers in these states from using the app; and
* We will work together to create a driver’s association in both states. Uber will help fund these two associations and meet them quarterly to discuss the issues that matter most to drivers.
Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.
Today, while the number of drivers using our app has grown dramatically, their reasons for doing so haven’t changed. In the U.S. almost 90 percent say they choose Uber because they want to be their own boss. Drivers value their independence — the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours.
That’s why we are so pleased that this settlement recognizes that drivers should remain as independent contractors, not employees. As one driver told the court: “I’ve been an employee and an employer, and I’ve also been an independent contractor. I know the difference between these things. With Uber, I’m an independent contractor. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.” As another said: “I wouldn’t even want to be an Uber employee. I would quit if they tried to make me an employee, because I value my freedom as an independent contractor too much.”
That said, as Uber has grown — over 450,000 drivers use the app each month here in the U.S. — we haven’t always done a good job working with drivers. For example, we don’t have a policy explaining when and how we bar drivers from using the app, or a process to appeal these decisions. At our size that’s not good enough. It’s time to change.
So today we’ve published a driver deactivation policy for the first time. It will apply across the United States, and our goal is to roll out similar policies globally over time. You can read it in English, Spanish, Mandarin and Arabic, with more languages to follow.
It’s incredibly important that when people use Uber, they have a great experience — one that is safe, reliable, convenient and a good value. Otherwise, fewer passengers will use the app over time, which is bad for everyone. The policy explains why drivers are deactivated, the warnings we give and the circumstances in which drivers can use the app again.
Sometimes it’s clear that a driver shouldn’t be allowed on our platform: we permanently ban drivers who are violent, drink and drive, or refuse someone a ride because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation (it happens, sadly). But what if a driver’s rating declines due to poor driving or a smelly car? (And it’s not just bad smells that cause problems — we do get complaints about too much Febreze.) In those cases we let the driver know that there’s an issue and, if things don’t improve, we deactivate their account. We’re also working with a number of companies to provide affordable quality improvement courses.
As part of this settlement, Uber has agreed not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline trips when they are logged into the app. If too many drivers decline the rides we send their way, it undermines the reliability of the service for riders. But we understand that drivers need breaks, and sometimes things come up — maybe a kid has gotten sick at school. When drivers aren’t available, we’d just ask they turn off the app. And where drivers do have low acceptance rates — perhaps because they are multitasking at home — we will alert them to the issue. If things don’t pick up, we may log them out of the app for a limited period of time.
Uber has become an important part of many drivers’ lives, whether they drive all week or for a couple of hours to help pay the bills. So we’ve agreed to create an appeals process in California and Massachusetts for drivers who disagree with these decisions. In fact, we’ve been working on a pilot in Seattle for the last few months, which includes having other drivers hear these appeals. Our hope is that this kind of peer review process will improve transparency and accountability and give drivers an additional voice. If this approach is successful, we’ll look at rolling it out across the U.S.
Uber is a new way of working: it’s about people having the freedom to start and stop work when they want, at the push of a button. As we’ve grown we’ve gotten a lot right — but certainly not everything. This new deactivation policy is an important step forward when it comes to working with drivers. But there’s more to do, which is why I’m excited about some other improvements we have planned for the not too distant future. Stay tuned." [1]
[1] https://medium.com/@UberPubPolicy/growing-and-growing-up-6ba...
The implication of the headline is that the event, the panelists, or Paypal are sexist -- which is obviously untrue.
I don't believe inflammatory "culture war"-related content like this (where the main purpose is virtue signalling, generating outrage, and mean-spiritedly making fun of companies), belongs on the frontpage, so personally I flagged this submission.
- Also cuts full year margin guidance, sees 62% down from 63% before
- Generated $4 BN in cash from operations, of which it spent $1.2 BN on dividends, $793MM for buybacks and saved the rest for severance
- Notable difference in GAAP vs non-GAAP: GAAP Net Income: $2.046BN (missing expectations), non-GAAP Net Income: $2.629BN
Also at http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/11/ot47-openai/ "And a very different kind of campaign – computer science conference LambdaConf uses a blind review process to select topics for presentation. This year one of their selections was a talk on weird-namespace-software Urbit by Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug). A group of Twitter activists demanded that he be excluded from the conference for his political views. When the conference refused to capitulate, the activists started pressuring sponsors to pull out of the conference in the hopes of making the conference financially unviable. After some preliminary success, anti-censorship blog Status 451 launched a counter-campaign to get people concerned about freedom of opinion in tech to donate to LambdaConf and help make up the difference. This is usually where I’d ask you to donate, except that they reached their $15,000 goal within the first day of their campaign, they’re now 146% funded, and the only reason to give any more at this point is to give an even louder FUCK YOU to the people involved. Since that actually sounds pretty good, you can take a look at the campaign here. See also ESR’s take."
Not good for senior execs either of course, nor for the advising banks due to lose out on $100 million of fees (Goldman, Guggenheim, Centerview, Moelis & Company), and JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley lose out on dozens of millions of investment banking fees.
Maybe good for some of the workers, who won't lose their job to "synergies" anymore?
"The ICIJ findings include evidence that:
- Offshore companies linked to the family of China's top leader, Xi Jinping, as well as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who has positioned himself as a reformer in a country shaken by corruption scandals
- 29 billionaires featured in Forbes Magazine's list of the world's 500 richest people
- Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and his wife secretly owned an offshore firm that held millions of dollars in Icelandic bank bonds during the country's financial crisis
- Associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies
- New details of offshore dealings by the late father of British Prime Minister David Cameron, a leader in the push for tax-haven reform
- Offshore companies controlled by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the King of Saudi Arabia and the children of the President of Azerbaijan
- 33 people and companies blacklisted by the US Government because of evidence that they have done business with Mexican drug lords, terrorist organisations like Hezbollah or rogue nations like North Korea
- Customers including Ponzi schemers, drug kingpins, tax evaders and at least one jailed sex offender
- Movie star Jackie Chan, who had at least six companies managed through the law firm"
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/716400800499679232
Mostly the Greeks take offense to the IMF, per Bloomberg [1], "considering a plan to cause a credit event in Greece and destabilize Europe."
Also: "Acc to #IMF leak, conf call was held March 19, when Velculescu was still in Athens, Hilton Hotel. Makes you wonder if Hilton is bugged." [2]
[1]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-02/imf-discus...
[2] https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/716226465910665216
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12166#efmAMoAbj
[1] http://qz.com/300825/how-fab-com-went-from-a-1-billion-valua...