I'm not a lawyer and this isn't investment advice so don't sue me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure this qualifies as insider trading in the way that would be illegal for public markets.
Aren't most investors in private companies privy to information that isn't entirely public?
I can see how this feels a bit different because DataBricks might be the size where it might trade with a decent amount of liquidity, but certainly in smaller rounds it's got to be pretty normal.
Maybe if she bought it secondary and the person from whom she purchased the shares was witheld this information they could sue?
I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they represent real events.
If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake.
Also since no one likes RAW footage it should probably just be you post your edited version which may have "AI" upscaling / de-noising / motion blur fixing etc, AND you can post a link to your cryptographically signed verifiable RAW footage.
Of course there's still ways around that like your footage could just be a camera being pointed at an 8k screen or something but at least you make some serious hurdles and have a reasonable argument to the video being a result of photons bouncing off real objects hitting your camera sensor.
> Simply put, there's no first-world country in the world where top talent can earn even close to a US salary, which largely due to the fact that US is relatively permissive towards large income disparities.
Why do you think it's A -> B and not B -> A? What factors of the US being permissive towards large income disparities do other nations lack that prevent them from paying equivalent salaries.
One specific thing I've heard which makes sense to me toward explaining the salary gap is the US tends to have at-will employment while other nations make it more difficult to fire people. I wouldn't personally classify as promoting income disparity though.
That tweet which had an image showing bands of latitude that it may hit and times (london/newyork ish tomorrow and day after) has been deleted by the author and now says "I would like to make an apology to the small body community. Some information was shared with me on an internal company message board that I did not have full perspective on and I posted a tweet, which I now understand was not appropriate. It was preliminary data and I did not have full perspective on it."
In my annectdotal experience the same people who tout wanting to support and hire from a diverse pool of applicants to not miss the next Einstein, don't extend that logic into the Unborn.
I think the way we are likely to solve our greatest issues like climate change through having more smart, well-educated, well-raised, and loved children. So if you're privileged enough to have the capacity to raise such children it's probably one of the greatest things you can do for the future health of this planet (and if you still feel torn about the overall population rate you can still apply this logic to adoption).
If all the altruistic people depopulate themselves, then only the least altruistic will remain.
For some reason many people react to learning about deep fakes' potential with huge concern as if photos and video used to be infallible and it's suddenly being overturned when this really hasn't been the case.
I don't much about the blackmail industry, but I would imagine the reverse would be more likely.
I would think blackmail works best when being used on things which are actually true. If someone wanted to blackmail me by sharing a fake photo of my cheating on my spouse I wouldn't cave for anything because I know I haven't so I feel confident I have enough other evidence to fight that claim. My location data, who is the "other woman", etc.?
On the flip side if I had commit some crime and someone made a deepfake of me doing that crime but they didn't actually have a legitimate photo, I might cave at that point since I would think it's a genuine photo and presumably they know even more about the incident.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "post-truth", but I think for the vast majority of human history we've lived in a time where it was rare to have easy/cheap to create and hard to fake records of what happened (photography, videos, audio recordings).
In terms of a single photograph though that's been very easy to fake in compelling ways for at least the past 30 years look at lochness and bigfoot photos.
Video's harder, but still pretty much all of this is not horribly difficult to fake. We've long been able to edit things out and mix audio to make a compelling video of a cartel leader meeting with them, no need for deep fakes.
January 27th, 2021 Robinhood sent me an email warning that "In an effort to help reduce risk, we've begun implmenting certain restrictions for GME and AMC options trading". They explain some restrictions being made to options. They don't provide any sort of warning that completely removing the ability to buy the underlying stock for all of their users was even a possibility.
I think it sshould be part of their fiduciary duty to inform people of the risks of purchasing stocks that they are running out of collateral for.
You're saying they'd sell it to the next customer, but Robhinhood wouldn't sell it to the next customer - so that's where this seems to break down. When a RH user placed a sell order why couldn't the buy side of their order book add that?
Do you feel the same way about headphones? I think headsets are basically headphones for eyes. I can listen to low fidelity 2d sound from my laptop speaker, or I can put on headphones, noise-cancellation and immerse myself in 3d audio. I think eventually we'll come to see vr headsets as essentially the same
I guess I'll be "that guy" and say even though it's a disruption I feel a bit sad for the loss of the switch between standard and daylight time.
Yeah it's annoying, but I never found it devastatingly so and it's almost like an extra 2 holidays, I would occasionally get an extra hour once a year (and also lose an hour). I feel a bit sad knowing my child won't get that feeling of dread having to go to school one hour earlier and that boost of going to school one hour later. It feels like the world is become more practical in so many ways, but with it we lose some flavor.
I also love seasons and dislike places that are the climate year round for the same reason - it's a little extra something that breaks up the monotony. At least every time-shift you know that half a year has passed. I really imagine a lot of people will become very nostalgic to having to change clocks throughout the house and then eventually it'll die off and become a completely forgotten relic of the past.
I may be in the minority, but I make a distinction between personal IRL information like searching my name reveals my phone number or address. And online tracking information like when I have this cookie or browse from this IP, show me more X. Also Facebook is a large responsible company (no major data breaches, etc.) I know they're hated on, but something like Equifax is several orders of magnitude worse in my opinion.
Facebook (and maybe Google?) buy data about me to try to match me online so they can provide ads on their own service, but they don't reveal my data to anyone else - advertisers don't get my phone number or physical address or even email from them, when they want to advertise to me.
The companies that optery seems to be fighting against are ones that post my physical address and phone number and family members and name online in one spot so anyone can find it, without me ever opting in to that.
Aren't most investors in private companies privy to information that isn't entirely public?
I can see how this feels a bit different because DataBricks might be the size where it might trade with a decent amount of liquidity, but certainly in smaller rounds it's got to be pretty normal.
Maybe if she bought it secondary and the person from whom she purchased the shares was witheld this information they could sue?