In spite of all the various potential high-tech solutions -- i.e., Google Lens -- I would strongly advise just contacting an antiques brooch specialist. They will know where to look, or may even know the crest from taking an immediate look.
I love the power of technology to make knowledge accessible, but sometimes I feel that we forget that deep expertise exists in people too. There will be someone -- if not a couple of people -- have have likely spent their full life /only/ learning about Bavarian brooches.
This might just be the 'first arrow' from the SEC with much more to be added down the track, but it's interesting to see that they have gone in heavily on defrauding equity investors in the FTX business -- rather than pulling the rug on customers.
Either that's because it's easier for the SEC to prove, and get it to the point of demonstrating fraud? Or the US customers and the FTX US business were relatively untouched throughout this whole process, so there is less to go on for US customer fraud?
Or, perhaps, this is just the first arrow to smoke out more data, informants, etc, with a strategic view to adding further allegations down the track?
It is much safer to get bad news out in your own voice than risk that it leaks some other way, either through a journalist reporting on it or, even, an employee breaking the story on social media.
If the company doesn't get on the front foot to control the narrative, they will wake up to an email from a journalist saying that they are writing an article about 30pc cuts.
At that point, the journalist is likely to have heard the news -- and largely written the story. The company will be able to provide a quote, but by that point they will have lost control of the narrative. They won't be able to put their own headline on it -- as the start-up has done with this blog post.
One story becomes two. Becomes three. Becomes four. Etc. Then a media narrative sets in that the company is on the way to bankruptcy, etc, etc. Investors start calling the CEO, etc, etc.
I know that people find these types of announcements cringe and think that PR is a waste of time. But there is a reason most companies use this playbook: it is safer and it works (most of the time).
For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a justification for all the language and messaging in this announcement, but a broader justification of the general strategy of communicating openly and in your own voice when you have bad news.
"Of that total, $1 billion went to Bankman-Fried in the form of a personal loan, while $2.3 billion went to an entity he controls, Paper Bird (Bankman-Fried has told Forbes that owns 75% of the entity, with Wang owning the rest)—so that’s another nearly $1.73 billion at Bankman-Fried’s disposal."
The current holdings are valued at today / yesterday's spot rate.
Given that many of these holdings are in (comparatively) thinly traded alt-coins, as soon as you try to dispose of these levels of coins / tokens, the price will fall as supply overwhelms demand.
Of course, this is represented by the fact that many of the alt-coins are marked as relatively illiquid -- and SBF has put a lackadaisical disclaimer at the top about the shifting price.
But the reality is that regardless of how long you wait -- or how much you try to spread the disposals -- you will only ever get a percentage of the current spot rate, given the impact that the sales will always have on the price itself.
I can't shake the feeling that SBF might say... "Yes, but once we have reassured the market, etc, etc, these alt-coins might recover in value -- and then we can dispose at this level."
That wouldn't capture the main driver of population decline for most these countries.
Seems like the primary cause in most cases is /not/ the fact that deaths are outpacing births but, instead, that emigration is outpacing immigration.
Most of these countries are low-income nations in the EU whose workforce is now leaving to flock to higher-income countries.
We're basically seeing a brain drain in EU countries that need that workforce most to drive future growth. One of the unintended consequences of EU membership.
I can see a significant amount of scepticism in the comments, and I think that much of the feedback is valuable and important, such as the lack of a 'point of difference', interface, value-add above existing solutions, etc.
But, a little disappointed with the pessimism in the comments in general. Someone has gone out of their way to build something from scratch and, regardless of whether it ticks all the boxes at the moment, I think that deserves positivity and a big 'well done'.
Projects rarely ever launch 100pc perfect -- or even 20pc perfect. It is best to launch, adapt, and iterate.
Note to poster: try to imagine that all the comments here start with 'Well done for launching, but something you might want to think about is...' Lots of the points are valid and require your attention, but they have been presented in a defeatist and negative way -- as if your launch is the end of matter and, as a result, it is all doomed to failure rather than providing a springboard to change, improve, and pivot as required.
This is from the author's perspective, which just feels wrong. It doesn't feel natural. I cannot believe anyone would feel 'caught out' by the student-professor exchange. The scope of the project was a little vague, and the research team would just shape it as it went along.
The 'gotcha' moment just doesn't exist here; the awkwardness sounds like something that was artificially perceived on the student's side. In any usual situation, the professor would say... "sure, but we're going to do it anyway" or "sure, but we'll expand scope" or, more likely yet, "sure, but we'll work it out as we go along".
With respect to the retraction of the offer, it is more likely to be because either: 1) the research team failed to organise bits and pieces in time, shifting priorities, or just didn't fully commit to the project in the first place; or, and I hate to say this, 2) the exchange revealed that the student was a little socially awkward, which they took as a red flag.
Artem, do you know if there is a parameter for ordering the RSS results by time for the Google News RSS results? This is very helpful.
Finally, I pay $2000+ annually for a competitor to NewsCatcherAPI. It may be worth connecting. I signed up for a trial earlier and the two issues for me would be (i) the range and depth of publications and (ii) not being about to track mentions / references in the body of the article.
I may not be your target audience but one of your competitors is pulling in 10m articles with the full article content per day. I use the API for timely alerts for PR monitoring -- my priority is that I pick up mentions of companies / individuals wherever they happen quickly.
Your pricing is a lot more competitive. I just wonder whether you are looking to move in the direction of range and depth in the future, or whether you're targeting a different market segment.
Key quote for me: "As an industry, we must be more careful about how we use these terms, and only call something AI when it genuinely is AI. If we continue to apply the term AI to everything, regardless of whether it is true AI, we risk business decision-makers dismissing it as empty hype that cannot solve their actual problems. It will start to look like marketing puffery."
You should be able to sell Jarvis to PR, marketing, and communications companies -- at a price point much higher that you're currently selling on your homepage.
Have you conducted any cold emails/sales call campaigns to those clients? I'm pretty sure you could find buyers at $100/month, if not more. I see the immediate value.
How have you been marketing this so far? What audience have you been targeting? What routes have you been using, i.e., PPC, direct outreach, cold calls?