This has happened since banks started selling investment products, wealth managers simply pull up a list of cash heavy accounts who haven't opted out of marketing where they can push investment products. Think is biz model private bankers and 'Wealth Management' arms at banks are built upon
I skipped to that part and almost closed the stream thinking I had clicked the wrong link, I was kinda annoyed someone passing of CG for the real stream, then I realised it was real
Unhinged sounds about right, the blog post started out normal but it became increasingly disconnected and unsubstantiated. It read like something someone on adderall would churn out
In my comment, I specifically said trading with cash. Easy to argue it was not arbitrary when there's a whale no one know about and the stock is obscure and the whale pays the brokerage more money that is worth to risk losing a few customers in that obscure stock. That's why these rules exist, even though they are more in-principle than anything
Without such regulation what would stop any bad actor from colluding with brokers to halt trading a moments that benefit themselves? Pretty hard to enforce or prove in practise but the idea that brokerages can prevent groups of users from accessing markets willy nilly is absurd. This is for cash products no any futures/options, even for those once they grant access it should not be taken away
Yes obviously which is why OP is asking the question.
And you aren't right, there are many games where there are objective scores or measures of skill like other have said golf, darts, billiards. What leads to a field being more objective is the presence of scores which can be compared and serve as the goal, and the score outcome is not based on luck or opponent play.
Because success cannot be attributed to luck or skill, star traders could just be a result of survivorship bias, many are still unable to beat the market net of fees
In the article there isn't any discussion of cause and effect, it is a probabilistic model. Eg. being near a virus lab makes it more likely it's a lab escape, being 1000km away from the main zoonotic reservoirs (bat populations) in China make it less likely it's of zoonotic origin. This is not to say it's impossible as researchers do travel 1000km from Wuhan to get samples from bats. I'll not comment on the probabilities they assigned to each hypothesis (they may very well be discounting the likelihood of zoonotic origins too heavily) but that is the approach they took.
You are looking too much into this. The more people act on contrarian business ideas, the more longshot potential unicorns VCs can invest in. The seminal YC example is Airbnb, letting strangers sleep on a mattress at your house. Sam and other VCs no doubt personally know many founders who face skepticism and self-doubt towards their startups, this is aimed at them.
For companies like banks, the transition is the riskiest part. For management, there is no upside in such projects since the system already works, but downsides are project failure and your banking systems ceasing to work. Not to mention cost.
This is great. There are few good and truly free alternatives. Been through a few with in-app purchases to limit the number of hands and bloated with ads. Now I can play with friends while in isolation.
For context, Singapore has a team of 20 that can call contacts of confirmed cases, they are able to make 4000 calls a day. Those in contact with confirmed cases are made to a mandatory home quarantine, i think something like 35k people in Singapore are currently serving home quarantines.
This comment is a little pointless because almost anything that need your data needs you to trust them.