aneemzic

I'm sorry, but if the ledger wallet was actually compromised it would be an extremely sophisticated zero day hack that the hackers would not compromise being exposed over a few hundred thousand.

The fact he saved a screenshot on his iPhone of either passphrase, which is number one do not, shows he wasn't being careful and likely made other mistakes that could have been exploited.

I do feel for your nephew, but it's almost certainly user error and not related to the ledger wallet at all.

Maybe you feel that way because you live in a country with significant independent media and don’t need to rely on international news outlets reporting on news that directly effects you.

Do the people in nearby developing countries speak English?

In most pacific island, yes. In places like East Timor English it's not uncommon at all, news is also often shared via relatives who live abroad. Do you really think china doesn't have multiple news outlets written in English to promote their power abroad, just look at the South China morning Post.

It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reason

I'm confused why you would think that? A lot of these countries have specific phone plans which exclude Facebook data and they like a large amount of people get their news on social media.

Here's a few articles on the very subject [0][1]

[0]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/pacific-media-warns-f...

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-aust...

I think more importantly, the government realized how badly Facebook could hurt their influence in the Asia Pacific region. Without Australian news on Facebook, people in nearby developing countries would be getting their international news from from other countries (china).

I find it odd the only accusation they list against Whatsapp is it was sending metadata, then list a group of alternatives who largely use the same metadata.

I understand the hate for Facebook and why people are obviously skeptical. But is there something more I'm missing here around what whatsapp/facebook are accused of? It seems like it was just timestamps and public profile information.

Totally different.

I don't see how they are different at all. The talker is used to bring in a certain type of person they're looking for. How they convert that persons attendance in to a return for their business is irrelevant. Comic-on doesn't just make money on tickets, bringing those customers in also leads to them making more transactions inside

In this case, we are talking about companies paying people exorbitant sums for no other reason that at some point the speaker may be in a position to affect the flow of government largess.

That's conjecture and no we aren't. We were specifically discussing “wall street speaking fees” and why they demand such a high rate. Which there are clearly other valid business incentives other than the one you've landed on.

As to whether this specific case had nefarious motives. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion either way.

I guess it stems from a time when all you really had to work with was physical evidence and the only records being what officers had written down. So it really wouldn't have worked any other way. A suspect is always going to say whatever makes them seem innocent. "I wasn't holding that knife when you arrested me" would be impossible to disprove if the suspect was wearing gloves at the time or forensic evidence wasn't yet available. So in some ways the officers word had to hold more weight.

It seems like the only solution is for every single interaction to be digitally recorded.

Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear? I assume because it attracts the type of audience they see as their customers.

Hedge fund billionaires, bankers and policy makers on the other hand aren't going to show up to listen to what johnny depp has to say. So you have to pay for someone who will be draw for them. The higher the status of the customers you want, the more you'll find yourself paying.

I assume it's organized to attract and bring it wealthy individuals, who I suspect are not the easiest to get time with. When you think about it, it's a small price to pay to get a large group of billionaires in the same room and what their prospective business/donations could be worth depending on what you're selling/promoting.

Just think the type of people you get in to the same room who normally wouldn't give you the time of day if you had obama agree to give a private talk.

This only lasts until someone figures out how they are different and breaks the association right?

Would you be OK if banks started charging you 4% more interest because say you have irish heritage? Your behaviour hasn't changed and nobody can explain why it matters that your father was irish, but the models determined it's statistically significant,

What if at some point 30 years down the line it's determined it wasn't even related to irish heritage. There was just coincidentally long running extreme predatory lending by banks in cities with large irish populations.

Would you still feel there's nothing wrong with it?

I don't agree that this has anything to do with political objectives. It's a question of ethics. My domain knowledge is irrelevant, the ML Modelling aspect is irrelevant. The discussion was specifically around whether it's ok to include inherent traits when determining the credit worthiness of an individual.

If you think it is, that's fine. We might as well just taking the same approach to crime, and start locking individuals up or not extending job offers, NOT because they've done a single thing wrong, but simply because they're statistically more likely to.

No.

Credit worthiness should be because of an individuals past actions and not some attribute they may have been born with. Why should a tall individual who's never missed a payment have some invisible penalization applied because some other tall people are worse at re-paying loans.

Don't you see the issue here? You're penalizing individuals not based on their own measurable behavioral signals, but simply due to some physical trait they share with others. Not to mention, we wouldn't even understand why there's a correlation in the first place. Maybe tall people are 30% likely to have some unknown gene, why should the other 70% of tall people who don't have the gene be treated the same?

What I don't understand, is why the government is trying to push through a law and seem ok with a result of the complete removal of access to news from peoples two largest sources. During a pandemic, with continually occurring lockdowns.

It's baffling.

The average salary in Australia is $55k, the average in the Philippines is $3.9k. Not taking in to account disposable income that's about a factor of 15. The entire philippines only has 4 times the population of Australia. The 2 markets aren't even comparable.

User value to companies that serve advertising is based on what companies are willing to pay to serve ads to them. Which is directly tied to the monetary value of that users business to the company buying the advertisement.

And will rather deindex all news sites, not pull search entirely.

That's the hilarious part. They modified the law to explicitly disallow Google from doing that.

I can't wait until they realize all the money they spend lobbying resulted in a law that will remove the majority of their traffic and what's left of their ad revenue. Nobody is replacing Facebook in the Australian market, and no search company is going to open them up the financial risk of unknown third parties deciding prices for literally linking to their pay-walled news sites. Microsoft won't, but they'll happily take free market share for doing nothing.

This is a prime example of why the government should not get involved in b2b. The incompetence of the government never ceases to amaze me.

I see this repeated often and I've never been able to find a source for it. I do not believe stimulant medications affect people with ADHD and without ADHD differently.

I'm sorry but you clearly haven't even tried to research the subject, so I'm not surprised you don't believe it. People with ADHD have been scientifically proven to have deficiencies in specific neurotransmitters, namely norepinephrine and dopamine. There's multiple studies on ADHD and reward pathways you could find with a simple google search.

If you understand how amphetamine based stimulants such as adderall work, you'll know these are 2 of the major neurotransmitters that they target along with serotonin.

The entire reason for using these types of medications is to improve availability of neurotransmitters to those with abnormal production that impedes cognitive function. Sure people with normal levels can take stimulants and see effects, since these drugs don't balance levels, they just increase them. In a person with normal dopamine production it's just going to lead to an imbalance, and result in the euphoria feeling they're seeking, whether they want to admit it or not.

Edit: the article you posted doesn't even support your argument. It seems in people without ADHD, the medication resulted in increased impulsivity and distractibility.Most likely as a result of abnormal levels of norepinephrine. This is evidence of the drug having literally the opposite of it's intended effect when taken by people without ADHD.

They don't even need to create a new social network. If they want FTE benefits of a specific company. They could always, you know, apply and clear the interview.

Almost all brokerages charge a ACAT fee. Stop trying to make this in to something it isn't.

No, you specifically said it's a first amendment problem and to let adults gamble. If it was a first amendment problem, gambling wouldn't be illegal in most states.

Robinhood is only available in the US.

The same reason it didn't effect Facebook. Ratings don't matter for apps that are already household names. There's also no comparable alternative.

I'm concerned about this because this is a 1st amendment problem. Let grown adults gamble.

Gambling isn't even legal in most states. Good luck arguing that.

Do you honestly think the majority of people who use Robinhood as a broker actually understand how short positions work and why they're driving the price higher?

It's clear price manipulation and it's exposing people to substantial risk they don't understand.

I'm not on the side of the banks. The problem is people think they're hurting hedge funds, but the reality is the ones who will end up hurt most are the people who can't afford to take the losses.

The elites will be fine regardless, they understand what they're doing and will just exit positions with losses if the they determine the risk is too high.

You know who want be fine? The idiot retail investors who actually use robinhood as a broker, lose all their money and can't pay rent because they lost it all gambling on something they didn't understand.

It won't be the elites holding the worthless stock when it inevitable crashes to 0.

I don't think you understand what closing a position means.

I don't buy this argument at all. That's such a broad definition. By that logic every single business that sells any type of product or service is a competitor since they all compete for consumers money.

It isn't how the world works. For change there needs to a value proposition. Your entire proposition is it fits your personal views. Why do you expect others to change for your personal choices when you aren't willing to change for theirs?

You essentially have a personal disagreement with the practices of a specific company and want to inconvenience others who might not think the same way. It's arguably a selfish perspective, family members may be willing to bend to those demands for an individual. But to expect businesses to indulge every single individual preferences for how they wish to be contacted is impractical.

So essentially you want an open-source, mainstream free to use service that operates at a large scale and doesn't monetize through ads?

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath.