totalZero

I used to think that (due to tribalist human nature) mainstream American culture is structurally blind to the fact that virtue signaling by organizations is often superficial and sometimes gives cover for more discrimination than at places that don't try to sail the currents of the zeitgeist. Posts like this make me realize that sooner or later, organizations will figure out that it's usually better to just avoid carrying banners on social justice topics and focus instead on treating staff and customers fairly and with kindness. No idea on the ins and outs of your lawsuit but I hope that you encounter the justice that you appear to be seeking.

That may be true, but from an engineering perspective it's unwise to build a two-story house on a sand foundation just because the rest of the neighborhood has done so.

  Despite good connectivity, some drivers can’t afford
  to stay online all the time, said Jaime. According to
  Jimena, about 98% of the train operators on her line
  use WhatsApp on the job, but some will often run out
  of data, which they must pay for out-of-pocket.

Seems like WhatsApp isn't the problem here, but rather the solution. They need better comms infrastructure and more funding for maintenance.

Respectfully, you don't appear to understand the topic and you are heavily editorializing. I flagged your comment because it strikes me as hateful.

This is a very anecdotal article. The technologies involved in 5G are without a doubt better than their predecessor generation. Service quality versus LTE varies depending on location, but -- to counter anecdotes with anecdotes -- I personally find 5G to be remarkably faster and better, am very pleased with 5G hotspot service for backup internet access, and I think the article doesn't do justice to the topic.

Firstly the article says the student is a girl. How much do you really know about her and her attitude if you didn't read that part of the article?

Regarding your experience with a refugee...doing good isn't a cache of poker chips. You can't justify judging a person today based on using something good that you said/did yesterday.

I don't think it's right to say something along the lines of "we might as well send this Sudanese person to Afghanistan for objecting to an image depicting something they consider sacrilegious."

I think you are wrong to frame the situation as a renegade student who is out to wage war. This (along with "if they don't like it, deport em") is a pretty common racist trope that is used to put Muslims down. Not saying that's your intent.

Religious freedom in the US is usually viewed in a way that differs from Europe (esp. France). Rather than forcing people to act or think secularly, Americans try to respect other people's boundaries as they are. It's a fundamentally different concept. No idea where you're from, but based on your attitude toward the meaning of "mutual respect" I'm guessing France.

It is likely that a Sudanese Muslim will view a depiction of the Muslim prophet as impermissible, and that a Persian Muslim will not. Why conflate the two?

There's more context in the school newspaper. [0] "'I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,' the professor said before changing to the slide that included these depictions."

The lecturer was aware that the images would be considered by many Muslims as forbidden. The head of the university's Muslim Students' Association was in the class. The lecture was on video and undoubtedly reviewed by the administration before they chose to let the adjunct professor go.

To me, it seems like this was a self-own by the lecturer rather than some kind of "war" waged (as you put it) by a student.

[0] https://hamlineoracle.com/10750/news/who-belongs/

Your lack of patience notwithstanding, it helps to take into consideration the fact that Islamic cultural practices vary from place to place. Saying that something is Persian doesn't fully capture the context. Sudanese Muslim culture is extremely conservative and until recently included laws against apostasy. The student who complained comes from this cultural background. Persians are generally from a different sect of Islam and have their own cultural complications.

Right or wrong, that's the context.

One fact of religious tolerance is that one person will inevitably view as sacred something that another person views as stupid. Drawing lines around certain practices is a challenging task for society as a whole. I personally don't believe that reducing everything to "fascism" is productive.

Your suggestion that people be deported to Iran or Afghanistan is among the most common racist retorts against Muslim people and indicates a lack of tolerance for what is in reality a fairly complicated issue that can only be solved by mutual respect.

As tempting as it may be to think this way and attempt to critique my personality based on a short textual response to a comment on HN, you may want to consider the following:

You may say something that hits 99% of the people in the way that you intend, but there will be people who fall within the 1% corner cases and take your discouragement to heart. It is important for those people to understand that naysayers are often wrong -- and they don't like having it pointed out. Some of those people may not even leave a comment, but what they read will linger in their minds.

The system lets you downvote my comment and it also lets me reply to your points A and B.

A. Stating the truth is a contribution to the conversation. The boundaries between success and failure are fuzzy and it is a disservice to suggest that you have to meet certain criteria to accomplish difficult goals. Every great success is unique and those who try to convince people that lofty goals are structurally unreachable are generally not the good guys.

B. You are conflating two very different arguments. One is, "OP needs to hit the brakes and re-evaluate because clearly something is leading him down a harmful path." The other is, "Those who set out to do something difficult are going to encounter disappointment, mistakes, and failure, and they should find hope in the knowledge that unique and unlikely success stories can be found in abundance." Your point is the former, mine is the latter.

In both cases, you are attempting to extrapolate my reasoning from my comment and that's an error on your part because you lack enough specific information about my thought process to infer my reasoning. I would appreciate it if you could respond to the best version of my comment rather than casting a harsh light upon it.

Why?

  Also you failed, maybe
  you're just 5 feet 6 and can
  never ever become a
  professional basketball
  player no matter how hard
  you try

Muggsy Bogues is 5'3" and played 14 seasons in the NBA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues

The indictment doesn't provide any specificity as to the side of the aisle relevant to the campaign finance law violations.

1. Securities exchanges have a well-defined process for clearing transactions, and don't receive off-schedule payouts from ostensibly independent entities in order to make those transactions work out.

2. If Binance goes under, what happens to the holdings of Binance.US customers if they are depending on transactions debited from Binance? It's not about clientele, it's about where the assets are parked.

3. You have the article's causality chain backwards. They establish the hypothesis first and then note that offshore market-making (noted in the Binance.US TOS) supports the hypothesis.

4. The article puts "market maker" in quotation marks, implying that it's not a real market maker but rather a vehicle to move funds to the other entity for the purpose of effecting trades. I interpret this as a no-arbitrage condition between the Binance and Binance.US.

5. The amount of money is irrelevant. If your assets are deposited in a regulated entity and then they get transferred to an unregulated entity for any reason aside from clearing your own transactions, something strange is going on.

6. Cross-exchange arb shouldn't result in USDT deposits on Binance.US dropping to six figures and then needing a $10M lifeline from Binance.

7. This "someone" as you put it was fairly prescient with regard to Alameda and FTX, using similar methodology, and faced similar criticism for the four or five days between their publication and the collapse of the FTX empire.

It seems unlikely that Ukraine will invade Ukraine, because Ukraine occupies Ukraine and has done so ever since Ukraine became Ukraine.

Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?

> Possibilities:

The comment said the fifth possibility is that they are solvent.

SBF said so but there is no public evidence of it, so far as I can tell. The federal government brought a charge against SBF due to his campaign contributions, so it can perhaps be expected that we will learn more about those contributions as this saga plays out.

I noticed that too, and interpreted it as a sign of confidence. I can't imagine a regulatory group writing something so dramatic without them being sure it's a home-run case.

SBF denied it but the Guardian picked it up. No idea if it's true.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/13/sam-bankman...

https://archive.ph/fUnp3

The part about the Chapter 11 legal fees is particularly interesting. It starts on page 8.

Yes. SoftBank has been extremely effective in the mobile telecommunications investment space. Look up Vodafone KK and their investment in Sprint.

SoftBank was SoftBank before its unprofitable/weird investments in businesses like WeWork and Boston Dynamics.

EUV is extreme ultraviolet lithography, and it operates at a far smaller wavelength (approximately 13.5nm) than earlier deep ultraviolet lithography techniques. These are very large machines that use a complex assortment of lasers and mirrors to basically print chip designs onto silicon. As chip features get smaller, they can operate with less power and they generate less heat. This is important for the chips used in portable devices like cell phones and laptops. There is only one producer of EUV lithography machines in the world: ASML. EUV is a key technology for printing small chip features because the bigger wavelengths have trouble printing extremely small chip designs.

The part where he discusses legal fees reaped in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is particularly interesting. He basically suggests that the lawyers made recommendations that maximized their own fees rather than maximizing the recovery of creditor funds.

I totally agree.

Licenses/certifications do exist. SBF had the FINRA Series 7 and 55.

https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/6204362

The loophole is that employees at hedge funds and investment advisers don't face the same licensing requirements as employees at banks and brokerages who deal directly with customers. There are people who trade billions of dollars of customer funds a week without any required regulatory exam or license.

It's not just crypto. The entire fintech space has an ideology that lines up far better with Silicon Valley than with Wall Street. The Wall Street mentality would dictate a very different course of action than the Silicon Valley mentality in many of the situations described in the cases brought by the DoJ and the SEC, and yet the Silicon Valley mentality seems to have been the guideline used by SBF/FTX -- perhaps because of a lack of experience dealing with customer funds, or perhaps due to ignorance of the seriousness of consequences.

Edge cases matter a lot more to Wall Street than to Silicon Valley. Wall Street is a world where the new hire on the desk gets a talking-to by the managing director for making an error that could have led to a big loss, and where people are regularly reminded not to put anything in writing that they wouldn't want to see on the cover of the New York Times. Silicon Valley is a world where "move fast and break things" is a central mantra, and sometimes those things that get broken are the rules.

US curbs are a stranglehold, but the more major causal issue is that China needs an independent chip infrastructure in order to invade Taiwan without suffering catastrophic economic damage.

This guy is getting greedy.

Anyone who runs a semiconductor equipment company would know that one major reason that ASML is critically important to the US government is its EUV technology. This is the barrier between the Taiwan-dependent status quo and an independent China semiconductor supply chain.

If ASML sells EUV machines to China, Taiwan loses a major source of importance to the Chinese economy. This would shift the entire Mexican standoff between China, Taiwan, the US, Europe, South Korea, and Japan.

The ASML CEO is playing dumb and pretending the issue is a simple question of percentage sales to China.

Shkreli got hard time even though investors didn't lose money due to his fraud.

There isn't a performance threshold beyond which fraud ceases to be criminal.

The only difference is using ice water instead of hot water. Preparation is the same: fill the gourd with yerba, pour water, spit out the first mouthful to clear the dust, pour water again and drink.

In other words, if you have the leaf you can make either version.

Apparently the cold version has less PAH. Not sure if this is a practical concern but for what it's worth there's literature.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09567...