texasbigdata

And they had the press release there lmao

Plea deals? :)

E ink displays for the win

There was an academic paper about this recently; we’re aware of “Asian” as a bias but not “physically attractive” and disproportionately favor the more pleasing individuals.

How is exclusion helping for a largely non binary but on average positive integer?

And it gets even harder to defend if you slice thinner: are penny stocks ok for grandma to own or just individual Fortune 500 stocks? Or no stocks at all just indexes? Etc.

Further, surely you wouldn’t argue the same for lottery tickets right? That the consumers can’t understand the math and/or can’t calc the probability ex ante therefore the government should preclude them from participating due to low “prowess” (ignore the positive tax base component).

I’d be okay with a “drivers license” type regulation than a minimum net worth threshold regulation which just increases inequality in the long run and creates greater divisions in society.

Edit: it’s weird I can work at riskyStartupXYZ as a 22 year old but not easily “bet on it” succeeding, even though the later implies much less risk.

You could argue the opposite. The accredited investor rule excluded a significant portion of the American population from participating in economic growth over a 20 year period. They are consenting intelligent adults, why does the government need to police their prowess over what asset classes they can participate in?

Note, I’m not arguing for wild Wild West rules, but it goes both ways.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

As they say.

What exactly does flex port do outside of the non descriptive marketing words on its website? Is it an oracle erp for a formerly pdf and paper heavy biz?

What did it end up being? I’m guessing closer to your order of magnitude? Excluding scope creep, of course.

Not sure, but I’d assume I’d be such a rounding error on the cap table that it probably wouldn’t be worth a milisecond of his processing time.

I’ve never received RSUs in a public company but can’t you basically set the strike price at whatever value you want? It’s just a financial instrument after all. NOTE, I’m not arguing for backdating.

If you’ve seen real narcissistic abuse, other than the screaming dehumanizing rage filled sessions, (and this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective) the person on a receiving end has a realllllly hard time cogently describing what they suffered without drawing some suspicion to themselves. And when threatened the narcissist will (this is a stupid term but in the literature) have both flying monkeys, and unleash an attack on your character. Recording everything written is probably not sufficient imho.

The covert narcissist in my opinion is the worst and apparently they degrade very ungracefully as they age, which is why you might be seeing it now at an advanced age for your in laws.

I wonder if you can predict when narcissists will lash outward versus lash inwards through self destructive behaviors. Would be helpful to know beforehand even if the predictive accuracy wasn’t very high.

You basically explained a corporate, non-family, version of the grey rock technique. Nice!

Source for the curious, many more online and on YouTube (including often helpful role play videos, strongly recommend for practical purposes): https://www.talkspace.com/blog/grey-rock-method/

Having actually worked as a financial advisor in “restructurings” aka bankruptcies, many (most?) of the comments in this sub thread are not correct. Pre-petition, post-petition and restricted payments (say management bonuses a few weeks before bankruptcies which are ellgibile for claw back) are treated differently. There is a strict order of preference (priority) which can be found in the bankruptcy code. Generally, employee wages are sacrosanct. What ends up happening with vendors is the following: “hey guys everything pre petition is washed, but here’s 2 cents on the dollar for your claim, AND the bankruptcy court has allowed us to use cash collateral to keep using you, soooooo, since it’s a sunk cost, how about you keep servicing us? And when we emerge the bk court requires a test of financial validation to our plans so you’ll know for sure we’re safe. “. As unfair as that is, many/most vendors take the deal. A large vendor will have a certain small %age of their customers go bk every year so they’re generally sophisticated and know how to play the game. Same for landlords. Also the unsecured creditors have a committee through which they voice their concerns. Further, if you play games and try to not sign the bk papers as a debtor, 7 creditors can band together and force you in, which doesn’t usually happen because of the game theory around that. But basically, as a general rule, don’t fuck around.

Your scenario as described is unethical, and a virtuous investor would have topped up those delinquent payments with some premium since those employees essentially funded the company with financing. In a bk, you also have access (I won’t explain this) to debtor in possession financing which is super senior to everything except basically tax liens iirc, and if there’s a working capital deficit like the wages mentioned in your case, those can be resolved.

The courts are very very strict on the bright line on pre and post petition spend and liabilities and shenanigans aren’t really tolerated. Also, the “zone of insolvency” brings significant liability to officers and directors of the company, and D&O insurance won’t always protect you against risk of this magnitude, so it’s best to steer far far away from unseemly behavior in any liquidity constrained situation. Those refs bite, and they bite hard.

Sorry you had to go through that.

Speculation: option pools (at least pre-ipo) are generally a fixed %age and therefore relative size. With fewer engineers the ones left get a higher piece of the pie? Just a guess.

Ah okay, this I actually know; see exhibit 115-1 on page 15 and repeated on page 23 from FTXs docket [1] managed by Kroll here: https://imgur.com/a/GxPEzIp (sorry for sloppy screenshot, on my phone).

What Elon is alluding to is a “roll over”. So, assume you have a house you bought with your brother 60/40% that you want to sell for $1M. What you can do is your brother “rolls over” which amounts to basically (assume no debt aka mortgage) his 40% which mathematically is the same as if he cashed out $400k at close simultaneously with you, and immediately reinvested it into the house with the new buyer. Elons choice of words suggests one of two things: a) no new money came in but FTX rolled over into the take private, reducing the financing Elon had to bring to the table OR b) he did not offer that to FTX and he essentially redeemed their stake and wrote a check at closing. Not sure which is true.

The exhibit suggests that FTX does indeed own 0%, however considering the required creditor matrix was filed confidentially in redacted fashion with the court, who knows what’s real.

Kinda nutty how much stuff FTX “bought”.

1. Warning, rabbit hole: https://cases.ra.kroll.com/FTX/Home-DocketInfo

Just based on historical experience. On the few things that I know about more than a cursory level the topic is either stale, or not usefully shallow, or incorrect (without attributing malice or incompetence) on Business Insider.

Not sure how to objectively prove my claim. The evaluating source could also be biased? If anyone has a source proving or disproving BIs merit as a news source, would appreciate you sharing it.

PS. No idea what Elon has to do with a random newspaper/blog post. Is this a Peter Thiel / Gawker reference? A Bezos / Washington Post allusion? A Bill Gates / Elon Tesla investment thing? You do know they are different people right, and not all famous/rich people are one homogenous blob indistinguishable from one another. And just in general it’s not clear how being rich / prominent qualifies you to be a noteworthy evaluator of news quality, especially when you’re likely frequently mentioned (probably negatively). Totally unfounded, but since humans are drawn to trauma porn, I’d assume 80%+ of news about billionaires is negative, and I’d further assume that 80%+ of billionaires hate the “common person” news outlets. So therefore I’d particularly be hesitant to take their recommendation of what to read. But that’s just a wild guess.

Also, without proof, business insider is not a reputable “news” source.

Further, it’s often applied backwards. Some financial engineering self proclaimed wizard will claim “x+y+z=a and the stock is trading at b, and a>>b, therefore the conglomerate discount is too large so we can earn risk free profit (aka arbitrage) by breaking this company up and publicly listing x,y, and z as independent units”. See: Xerox, for example.

Typically in mergers, you see accretion due to the removal of duplicate functions on the cost side (you don’t need two HR departments for example), but sometimes you get negative credit if you’re a too big / too opaque / too confusing.

They’re just big, no real ulterior motive.

Why not ban lotteries too? And casinos? Or have some committee legislate all activities a human can engage in? Where do you draw the line? Let the government solve how to produce energy and let it keep their fingers out of our personal lives.

What’s the fossil fuel burn of Bank of America’a entire IT and anti-fraud department?

I don’t care about the merits of bitcoin, but these simplistic crude and inaccurate legislation attempts are fundamentally market distorting and inefficient and restrict our rights.

The worse is the payroll companies leaking to equifax. In some states you can “disclose” car loan data on consumers to a certain extent, mortgage balances, etc.

Each one alone is troublesome and when aggregated it’s super annoying every American can basically be a voyeur target for a few dollars, and not even have to option to consent to this happening.

I believe he’s incorrectly inferring that google passes through confidential information through its mapping program, which is false as it’s believed fairly widely (and possibly admitted) some parts of their global coverage are omitted or altered. Either way, google mapping “everything” versus one dude driving to this place, launching his drone, then taking photographs of one specific target, imho isn’t the same thing.

Right in front of the Los Vegas sphinx and pyramid replicas, how ingenious!

Definitely locks the user in, pushes engagement up, probably pushes the creation of new "blocks" up, etc. Defends against google docs doing it to them?

Pretty well known in the states, luckily he seems to be talking to himself :)

Seems like a feature.