The end of Chapter 1 is a rape scene, I wouldn't call it "mild". I imagine it can be difficult to read for many people.
978 karma · joined November 8, 2015
That makes it sound like you pay half of capital gains in taxes, but I think what you mean is that 50% of capital gains is taxable, and that this portion is taxed at the same rate as other personal income. Personally I think 100% of capital gains should be taxable at the marginal income tax rate.
The support page doesn't have any definition of "opt-in". It simply says that users need to click under "Turn your PC's idle time to cash" and then accept a "License and Services Agreement" before they can access the "Norton Crypto dashboard" and enable "mining during idle time". I would consider that opt-in given that the user has to perform multiple steps before they can even enable the miner, and given that there isn't any suggestion to enable this by default during the installation process. If you don't consider that "opt-in", then please explain.
There seems to be a mob here that has been misled to think that the cryptocurrency miner is enabled by default and runs on every Norton user's computer in the background, whereas in reality it IS installed by default (as in the binary takes up storage space on the user's hard drive), but can only be enabled with multiple steps including agreeing to a separate services agreement that is dedicated to the Norton Crypto product.
(I still think it's dumb to bundle a crypto miner with an anti-virus product. But all this talk about it running without the user's consent is nonsense.)
Just to clarify because this sentence sounds a bit misleading -- according to https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... the cryptocurrency miner is off by default, so if you haven't turned it on, then there's no need to pause it if you don't want it running.
Users must explicitly agree to a Norton Crypto License and Services Agreement and activate mining before the software starts mining Ethereum. It is unlikely there would be any oblivious customers.
See https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v...
> (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it
Where do you see this? As far as I can tell, it is off by default, and the user must explicitly enable it (consent) to use the miner.
See e.g. https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... which mentions a License and Services Agreement that must be accepted before the miner can be used at all, and clearly says the mining status can be toggled between Active and Paused.
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
Edit: maybe you can get some decent results just with COCO segmentation labels: https://towardsdatascience.com/background-removal-with-deep-...
> Is my instance guaranteed?
> Yes, unless you run out of credit. To prevent that from happening be sure to setup automatic top ups.
They usually get tossed out pretty quickly.
"In 2016, an Illinois man sued Starbucks for misrepresenting the amount of liquid contained in its cold drinks. ... The judge agreed with Starbucks' argument that a reasonable consumer who orders an iced drink expects the drink to contain both liquid and ice."
And at most it seems he was giving his opinion about the company. He never said something like "everyone should buy GameStop because it's guaranteed to rise in value".
Prices are pegged to fiat but the merchants accept BTC directly.
The draft document has been made available to creditors but it says not to share with the public. But it does say that BTC and BCH claims will be valued at the BTC/BCH-to-yen conversion rate as of the time of commencement of rehabilitation proceedings (749,318.83 yen/BTC). And the payout will be less than that because the remaining assets will be distributed to creditors in a prorated system (although certain small fiat claims and possibly other claims may have higher priority).
There is definitely not a specific amount of BTC currently that would be paid to creditors per BTC that they held, since it depends on the final total claims (which is mostly finalized but may still change a bit), and presumably on the value of the remaining BTC/BCH assets held by the trustee at the time of distribution.
One creditor made a calculator to compute the payout based on the current exchange rates and such: https://old.reddit.com/r/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/l08ymh/mt_...
Only in January 2021 did CoinLab finally say, okay, we will agree that the distribution of 90% of the assets can start while our lawsuit continues (they are ridiculously demanding that CoinLab get some big portion of the other 10%, so they want that money held up until their absurd lawsuit is finally thrown out). See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/coinlab-r...
CoinLab's lawsuit has delayed the distribution process and their absurd claims are part of the reason why creditors with actual legitimate claims (i.e. Mt. Gox users) are still waiting for the remaining assets to be distributed.
It is like the bank has robbery and 20% of the money is stolen, but instead of distributing the 80% among the customers, it is given to the bank's US partner that said "oh hey we could've been the next big bank in the US if the other bank didn't get robbed".
Vessenes is not a "Bitcoin insider", he is a snake who seeks to steal billions from individual users who lost assets that they had held with Mt. Gox.
Here is what former Mt. Gox users who are still waiting for the distribution process think of this Bloomberg article: https://old.reddit.com/r/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/l9m3iz/coi...
> In one communication, CHEN instructed the colleague to remove any information identifying him (CHEN) as a PRC Talent Plan participant from documents concerning the proposed thermal energy project.
Most of the evidence is about activities he "failed to disclose", but this evidence supports the more serious allegation that he willfully acted to hide certain activities.
> In one communication, CHEN instructed the colleague to remove any information identifying him (CHEN) as a PRC Talent Plan participant from documents concerning the proposed thermal energy project.
Most of the evidence is about activities he "failed to disclose", but this evidence supports the more serious allegation that he willfully acted to hide certain activities.
> "People rent him for various reasons. At times he will participate in a gaming session to make up numbers, turn up to send off people who are moving away, accompany those filing for divorce, or listen to health care workers who have become mentally unwell due to their exhausting work."
Edit: according to https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7805&id=6962 (which has a finer breakdown) the number is 7.5%, but the jamestown.org article links to data also collected by NCCU (but maybe a different group), so I'm not sure what the distinction is.