2,326 karma · joined June 21, 2021
Sadly I have chased up situations like that only to get told "you provided one of the strongest pieces of work, however, we decided not to proceed to interview" - or responding at all apparently.
You gave them results / feedback on the screening phase? That is probably more rare than their email!
I've been hiring people for 10 years, and I still swear by a simple rule: If someone doesn't send a thank-you email, don't hire them.
Jessica Liebman Apr 5, 2019 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-write-thank-you-email...
Its a follow up to previous 2012 work ... https://www.businessinsider.com/the-number-one-mistake-peopl...
"They're all messing up on something that I think is very important when trying to get a job: the Thank You Email."
I guess in theory you could "catch" with the correct call by varying the height of the catching platfrom.
I will at least say, "goes to character", is absoultely an excellent and as I see it the only logical answer. If however, they have to play that game and that is all they have then they are going to struggle to make a legitimate case.
Maximum entertainment value from the sidelines will be not guilty with all the other FTX employees having plead out!
He did not testify that the number on the website was real. He testified to the existence of the insurance fund and the single biggest daily drawdown from the fund.
"which by itself is a felony" - wouldnt you mention that as the prosecution??? Or are they aiming for a mistrial on the grounds of incompetence?
> Prosecutors haven’t mentioned it, but Sam Bankman-Fried would go on to testify under oath in front of the U.S. Congress in May 2022 that “the insurance fund has paid out a net total of $9.5 million” in the preceding three years, and that “the single biggest daily drawdown from the FTX.com insurance fund was $4.7 million.”
Actual testimony. https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/11...
> Finally, prosecutors questioned Wang about the FTX “insurance fund”, which was ostensibly supposed to protect both FTX and its customers from trades that went badly even more quickly than the exchange’s risk engine could account for.
> One such example was in 2021, when a trader was able to exploit a bug in FTX’s margin system that allowed them to take out a massive position in the MobileCoin cryptocurrency. They were eventually liquidated, and FTX suffered a loss of “several hundred million dollars,” according to Wang.
The losses to the exchange from a failure of the code should be borne by the exchange not from any "insurance fund" whos purpose is the make good slippage losses for customers. There are grounds to ask why they passed the loss off to Alameda (in which case FTX co was defrauding Alemada co for an FTX mistake).
I see the narative that the prosecution is trying to push, but unless SBFs laywers are idiots they should be pointing out that they are trying to connect two distinctly different dots.
Certain customers (including Alameda) - I understang other customers had similar arrangements, and why wouldnt they? Every account was trading on margin and high leverage - the reason you auto liquidate is so they dont run off owing you money.
Is it fraud for a company to extend credit to another company? Any company that issues a invoice and allows say 14 days to settle is extending credit to the other party.
https://www.ycombinator.com/ Is every number on that page real time accurate? Is the combined value $600bn - if it is 599bn or even 601bn then ding ding ding we have ourselves fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Debt_Clock - Can I get any and all people behind this (and Similar Projectes) jailed for fraud?
However, I was unaware that they already conducted said experiment. I am now left confused as to why they would not mention such in the abstract, and refer only to natural experiments and second order measurements.
I shall aquire the paper and learn why.
That brings you into alignment with the article.
People dont understand the subtle art of language.
I, on the other hand, have always assumed that Buffett made the "I don't understand" remark with typical self-deprecating-but-knowing Buffett charm — as in, "All you people piling into dot-com stocks must be much smarter than I am, because I just don't get it!"
In other words, I believe that, in typical Buffett fashion, Buffett understood everything he needed to understand about technology in the late 1990s, which is that technology investors had gone stark raving mad.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-buffett-doesnt-invest-in...
Consumer banking is a very different beast to business banking.
Update - 23 Aug 2023 — Today, we are pleased to announce the general availability of IPv6 support for the Docker Hub Registry
Apparently it can be done now, I wont be finding out in a hurry.
They should be using custom software and be able to redirect / duplicate the distribution of their news to different or multiple outlets with little more effort than a few lines of code.
If they charge 100% on everyones transactions then my delux diamond card (sorry you dont qualify) can give me 200% cashback and everyone else can go f' themselves.
Ahh the land of the free
The "experiment" seems to be little more than spinning up a server.
FTX (excluding FTX USA co) were unregulated - they were not a bank or broker just a plain old LLC.
Run a chainsaw through them at the same height as they ran it through the tree - no need for further punishment.
1. People on my s*t list are in the dataset, and
2. Any of their passwords are in that dataset.
Then I can use the information to make their lives miserable.