SamReidHughes

Forget the constitution. Did you even read the law?

It was shut down by New York, not the FDIC.

She sold after the stock blew up to high levels. I was considering buying puts yesterday myself.

Oh, it’s 1.6% of her stake, too. Basic portfolio management.

> "number of excess death directly or indirectly linked to climate change."

That will be a negative number.

Because "climate change" i.e. global warming will see increased temperatures and increased crop yields.

The more general reason is that half of CS graduates are dumbfucks who don't even grok the stuff in the core curriculum.

We can just make them pay for it instead of mooching off everybody else.

It's conspiracy fact.

"Any buyer of Signature must agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank"

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-regulator-taps-p...

I've been offered payment in tokens. I don't know if they'd have had conditions, though.

The character's author-insert aspects are self-parody.

It was supposed to be a flawed protagonist.

It went above your head.

> Where did they sleep?

Maybe at least one of their parents had a sofa.

The trick is to have parents who aren't homeless.

What website do you think you're on? Anybody who is a competent software developer can.

Ah yes, so you just wait interminably for a hearing and spend thousands on lawyers before you can close your store.

If it worked that way, then if a company was going to shut down any unprofitable store, the workers could unionize as a trick to keep their jobs.

Owen Diaz suing Tesla.

My impression of arbitration agreements is that they have a neutral selection process. But maybe some blatantly state the company picks whatever arbitrator they want, or there is a way to be sneaky about it. Do share if that's actually the case.

Are there actual examples of cases wrongly decided by arbitration as a result of this phenomenon? Maybe they are all hidden under NDA.

No, they go indirectly[1] into the pockets of everybody, except for the Ellen Paos of the world filing lawsuits hoping for a cash grab.

[1] this means it's harder to understand

Prove that competitive pressures reduce margins and unbound risk reduces investment? Sorry but you just have to understand how the world works: This is a natural consequence of people having multiple choices and picking the best one.

> What could be more fair than the parties working out a settlement deal between themselves?

What's more fair is, obviously, working out a settlement deal where the alternative is arbitration, instead of a jury. (Why are you teeing up such easy questions?)

> Usually the employer pays which means they pick the arbitrator.

Not true at all.

It is better because arbitration agreements in a competitive employment market makes wages to be pushed higher or consumer prices to be pushed lower. The possibility of a jury trial adds costs because, the trials are more expensive, for starters, but also juries can and do give unjust levels of damages.

The thing you're linking doesn't even measure social mobility, it just calls itself a social mobility index.

I would argue that it provides liquidity solely to whoever placed that resting order. But it takes it from the rest of the market.

The housing crisis exists because the majority voted to have a housing crisis.

I came here to write this comment. Also, you usually need to have some means of canceling the task -- otherwise you have to wait for them to finish, or you leak these stray lost tasks that are doing stuff, like manipulating the state of things.

Not true, the Dynamex ruling was only applicable to wage orders by the Industrial Welfare Commission, and AB5 expanded the applicability to other aspects of labor law.

That's not really true; AB 2257, passed later, fixed some important issues with section 2776.

They are still consuming those property-hours.

Right; I'm saying, many people tax loss harvest, most don't swap back in the same day to an alternate share class on the same company.

The article's specifically talking about switching between nearly identical securities. Tax loss harvesting is more general.