It's tough to try to spin a $5b fine on a large company as a 'win' for consumers, but I see you'll give it a shot. Isn't this tacit admission that the different soda brands can only compete by legislative fiat? The only winners are the ersatz soda companies, and consumers pay significant costs, direct and indirect, in compliance with these kinds of market protection schemes.
Your statement begins with the presumption "Men discriminate against women." and flows from there. You and github begin counting, and see high representation in the tech industry by men, and low representation by women (and some minorities). This much is obvious. It's how you proceed from there, and naturally conclude "discrimination" is responsible for this discrepancy is not at all apparent to some of us.
From my vantage point, the only exclusionary, discriminatory behaviors and attitudes in the tech industry are directed at men.
A case could be made that HFT is beneficial to society. The author is incapable of demonstrating exactly how HFT is "bad" beyond just claiming it's "bad". I submit that the speed at which a market can respond to changing conditions is a measure of it's health.
I believe many people would be surprised to learn that they're already engaging in HFT, by way of their pensions at the least. Mom and pop traders have already experienced significant disadvantages with regard to day-trading. Long-term trading is usually best for them.
mmmm barriers to entry. Collect that market power! I submit that anymore, about the only barriers to entry left in any industry are regulatory barriers to entry. Do you know how scarce cabby badges are in NYC?
GoDaddy and Paypal have every incentive to bury their shoddy security practices and deny everything that the OP is claiming, to avoid a PR disaster. They might quietly return to the issue later and perhaps address some of their security issues... maybe.
Not to quibble, but 'poor college student' is a statistical oxymoron. I do agree though that cryptocurrencies offer great promise for 3rd-world economies and is a democratizing influence.
The politicians would simply carve out exemptions for themselves. I have seen no evidence that .gov has ever been this responsive to the impact of the laws they write.
Some people are hell-bent to kill a deal in order to demonstrate their worth. This happens sometimes with lawyers, and these 'ambitious' deal-killing lawyers are toxic to work with. I hadn't considered it before, but this may be common elsewhere too, such as HRA departments.
It seems to me that a good line to draw regarding overreach by the government is to determine who or what they're efforts are protecting. Terrorism laws were sold to us as necessary to protect the people. More recently, it seems that the efforts of the government has been to protect itself FROM the people.