> (It is, however, extremely important to me that I make clear that I had no idea there was a law like this for a reward when I resigned from UBS in October 2005, as the law passed in December 2006.)
Is this not just a humblebrag? I really fail to see the point of this. It is really cool to read about people who find inventive ways to overcome economic obstacles. It's somewhat boring to read that someone got a high paying job, and married someone with a high paying job, and then things worked out.
You're not going to get a much better reply than this. Speak their language, they will listen. Especially if you have access to historical data, it can be pretty easy to cherry pick some examples of where the improved QA would have had drastic savings.
People fear change, but no one wants to throw away money. Make them see the dollar signs.
The entire point of money laundering is to convert ill-gotten money into seemingly legitimate assets. It's not like they offered Espinoza dirty cash that he would buy for cents on the dollar with clean cash. He didn't channel their cash through legitimate business channels to obfuscate its history. He engaged in nothing resembling money laundering. This was a man who sold a commodity. Replace Bitcoin with literally anything else. If Espinoza sold them $30,000 of frozen orange juice concentrate, who cares if they're going to trade that for stolen Russian credit cards? In no way is he facilitating money laundering in either scenario.
This instantly reminded me of an article I read about medication side effect disclaimers actually increasing the odds of people trying the product. Both are pretty interesting effects.
Was anyone else floored by this? Even in the extremely unlikely scenario of Doig actually painting a piece he would disavow, how is the greater good served by going forward with the case? The can of worms the precedent would set are shocking. I would have a genuinely hard time proving my whereabouts 4 years ago, let alone 4 decades. This just seems like such an unreasonable expectation.
Anyone have insight as to why Snapchat is blocked in China but Snow isn't? Is Snow just currently under the radar and will likely suffer the same fate?
I was looking into those who signed (currently at 110 by the way) and I was a bit interested in the age range. Even though the years that individuals were granted the prize ranged to as far back as 1962 (James Watson was around 32 at the time), I didn't find anyone who's currently under 60 who signed. My search was far from exhaustive, so I'd be interested if anyone found a young laureate on this list.
Solely because of the time value of money. It might seem great to have profit now, but you really want to maximize your net present value[0]. Focusing on growth early is often the way to do it.