It will be less than %100, because of the unrealized losses on SVB's bond portfolio. Regardless of the amount, there will be delays in returning those funds as FDIC liquidates.
And also: at the time of Binance's offer to buy FTX, it makes sense only if Binance saw significant contagion risks to FTX's failure. But then they got a little closer and saw the huge hole in FTX's balance sheet and decided that they couldn't do that either. So it's really the worst outcome - they signal that FTX is important to their own business, but then can't do anything to save it. Does not seem to be good news for Binance.
Exactly. It's always inner joins unless there is a reason not, and then there should be logic to deal with the null results from the outer table. It's not strange to always do left outer either, it just makes reasoning about the query easier (start with the driving set, the inner/outer join the others as left joins). Mixing right and left outer always confuses me, and full outer joins are difficult to optimize, so I usually do left outer joins with unions in the rare case that I need a full outer join.
If nearly %100 of the nba is vaccinated, then it's more likely that the break thru cases will outnumber the cases on the un-vaccinated, even if the vaccine is very effective at preventing infection. The vaccine does not need to be %100 effective for it to make sense from a public policy perspective.
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look.
He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.
So as soon as they make any kind of restriction on the use of their platform they become publishers? That's quite a stretch. That would have the same effect: it would require them to provide unfettered access for anyone, for any purpose.
The owners of printing presses have even more power, but the government does not mandate open access to those machines for dispensing speech. Unfettered access to twitter is not akin to free speech.
I think per capita emissions are not the right measure to describe the worst polluters. You are right, prices paid for "cheap products" we consume don't include the costs associated with CO2 emissions, but if they did they wouldn't have much to do with a producer's population. A better measure is emissions per dollar GDP, where emissions (a cost) is relative to what gets produced (the benefit).
This. Google (and Facebook) can generate more revenue by leveraging the accumulated users personal information in more invasive ways, irritating their end users. They can sacrifice long term growth for short term gain (or not). I think some of this short term growth slowing is due to that - pulling back from the most egregious practices because of scrutiny.
And in finance, they've developed entire management wings called "compliance" to watch over things and make sure that laws are not broken/the firm is not put at risk. I wonder if that will happen here (there is a distinctly smaller set of laws that can be broken, but Zuck apparently is asking for that now...)
I think the primary problem is glossed over a bit in the article. Even though most people are unaware of the kinds of information gathered about them, 36% are "Somewhat comfortable" or "Very comfortable" with the kinds of profiles being built. This seems (to me) a depressingly high number, one that indicates that there will be no grassroots rebellion against the surveillance economy.