paulusthe

That's overly simplistic. AML laws serve more purposes than simply catching money laundering, they discourage the underlying crime in the first place. Discouraging that can't be counted, yet you are saying is "AML doesn't catch anything!" But you can't prove the negative.

AML also serves to buttress public support in the financial system because the public interest is being served, and at least recently, without AML the housing crisis would be significantly worse.

"Let the criminals put their cash wherever they want, because it's too expensive to stop them" Isn't exactly the rallying cry you think it is

The public option was killed by Arlen Specter, a Democrat, who refused to go along with the other Democrats. Rs were united, which made his defection critical. Kind of like how Joe Manchin throws a wrench in the works every few years in return for oil and coal extraction benefits for his company in WV

The state-run exchanges solution was itself a compromise for Republicans and on the fence Democrats, particularly Arlen Specter, who feared a federal healthcare system would inevitably lead towards universal healthcare. They received their compromise, then refused to implement the exchanges in the hopes that the law would die.

It didn't, and they're still mad about it.

Did the same thing. I guess it's fine if he doesn't want anybody to share his website, but in that case ... Why have a website

The diesel is bad enough. Hope you've got a great air filter, or the ability to move.

This is fun, but the game doesn't seem to accept that a pair of aces is a winning result. Aces specifically, other face cards work as intended.

As someone who has studied financial crashes extensively, I agree with you but worry that we lack the regulations. All these bank-ish companies offering credit cards are having impacts on the money supply (every loan they issue becomes an asset somewhere), and at some point their interconnections with the financial system are going to become a risk. I assume most to all fund their loans with money market borrowing, for example.

Then there's the broader question of whether this is good for productivity. If every company is a financial company, who actually makes tangible stuff?

Running a system that allows a fat fingering mistake like that to go through is yet another sign of their gross incompetence.

It's more complex than just that. Sure, there's the people trying to make a dollar who are willing to do bad science in order to get the result they want. But there's also the general publication bias against replication studies - who wants to read them, and who wants to do them (they're not usually seen as prestigious academically: most academics want to test their ideas, not those of others.

And then there's cultural differences in which people sometimes see a negative result as a "failure", don't publish it as a result, and instead skew the data and lie their asses off in order to gain prestige in their career. As long as nobody double checks you, you're good.

"regulations slow innovation" is not a valid reason to ignore any regulation one finds annoying.

That said, my problem isn't that he broke the rules. My problem is that, when confronted about having broken the rules, he lied about it then retreated into "why don't you believe the mission bro?" As if his solution is the only possible solution to the problem.

He's full of himself, doesn't care about rules, and gaslights those that criticize him. His messianic do-gooder-ism a bullshit marketing cover for him doing what he wants.

The magazine I worked for at the time was about to publish an article claiming that DeepMind had failed to comply with data protection regulations when accessing records from some 1.6 million patients to set up those collaborations—a claim later backed up by a government investigation. Suleyman couldn’t see why we would publish a story that was hostile to his company’s efforts to improve health care. As long as he could remember, he told me at the time, he’d only wanted to do good in the world.

In the seven years since that call, Suleyman’s wide-eyed mission hasn’t shifted an inch. “The goal has never been anything but how to do good in the world,” he says via Zoom from his office in Palo Alto, where the British entrepreneur now spends most of his time.

Thanks, I hate him already.

A messianic SV hand waver who doesn't care about anything but his special mission, doesn't care about breaking rules, and reflexively gaslights people who complain. As if "Why don't you support the mission bro?" is a reasonable response to "you should protect people's information."

I think it's personality differences. The people who love being in the office probably do best in that environment and likely got promoted into leadership as a result of their interpersonal skills / ability to navigate office politics. Those people cannot fathom why others would dislike going into the office, because it's so natural and normal for them, and they tend to think people complaining about it are just being kind of immature children. After all, the office has been great for them, so it's gotta be great for everyone!

I think it's an introvert extrovert split, primarily, with extroverts more likely to be in leadership roles and therefore dictating to everyone else to live like they do.

I agree completely. AI model trainers should have to pay the people who provide their training materials, and there should be a default assumption of opting out until someone or their company explicitly opts in.

Unfortunately the Peter thiels and all those bizarrely out of touch silicon valley assholes have already effectively scraped the Internet because ethics don't matter if you're special like them, so to a degree regulations are way behind the ball.

That said it's still worth doing, and I'd love to see it done retroactively as well. It's not as if "I forgot that I had a public Myspace 25 years ago" is an implicit user opt-in for some startup to save your data - however anonymized they claim it is (lol!) - and train its AI on it.

I think you're being overly charitable, because he's not really interested in governance writ large. He long ago decided what he thinks the best government system is, and sees everything political through that lens: is this good for my system, or is it bad.

He never actually questions his own system, because he's ultimately an engineer. He's clueless on social structures or systems.

If you really want to design your own house (a great idea), look up materials around A Pattern Language instead. Learn what makes a great house, then design a plan incorporating those ideas but customised towards your plot and your needs.

I get this is hn where diy ethos runs deep, but please don't do this. Hire someone to design it and oversee construction for you.

Expertise exists and matters.

Read this as "tacos," came expecting some pointlessly quirky OS filled with taco references (perhaps arguments are "fillings", passed to objects called "shells"), am now very disappointed

For what it's worth, sapiens was generally hated by academic anthropologists but Dawn of everything is generally hated by everyone else. Graeber was always expressly advocating for one specific (anarchist) viewpoint in his work, and that book suffers mightily for it.

Don't take anything in that book as true, because I've read lots of academics losing their minds over how much he glossed over or just ignored contrary evidence.

We truly do live in an incredible time. The first human immune to aging has likely already been born. Hypothetically, given enough luck, an immortal human probably walks among us. We're that close to being able to genetically modify everything.

No, this is a terrible metaphor, because the 14th amendment in this example doesn't exist.

Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law.

The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional.

Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.

What issue specifically are the conservatives in Israel mad about? Settlements.

It's not about high political principles or abstract questions of balance of power. It's conservatives mad that the supreme court keeps finding settlements illegal.

That's it. That's all it is. That's why they care about it now, as opposed to any other time in Israel's history. The ultra Zionists are in power and they want to cement as much Jewish settlement for as long as they can.

That's what this is. It's simple.

OP was being disingenuous at best, as if the country could be brought to a standstill over a minor legislative change to allow one guy into Parliament

This law is intended to prevent the judiciary from finding settlements unreasonable. Aryeh Dery is the cover story.

Yes.

Anyone who runs a business knows you can't just apply your overhead costs to one part of it but not another. If I have to pay the energy bill, that applies whether or not I had the gas on.

You're trying to handwave your way into saying we should care only about the specific cost of one specific bank function, which is silly.

Interbank transactions cost money for the same reason every other service costs money, because you're paying a business to do something for you. Climb off the soapbox and enter reality.

This is a loaded comment, because I think it's bullshit. The cost to process any payment of any size under the $10,000 AML threshold is constant, and functionally zero.

Your argument fails here, because you are wrong here. The cost is not zero, because what the bank does for interbank payments is subject to the same regulations and procedures as everything else a bank does. Banks charge money for transfers because there's regulatory overhead and shared liability.

What happens if they've missed you're a money launderer for the cartel and have to pay a $2bn fine because they processed your transaction for nearly nothing, instead of doing proper checks and stopping it?

Sorry, but you're just plainly wrong here. Very populist and very wrong

In the United States, the growth in spending on administrators from ~2000-present is more than the combined growth of spending on scholarships and professorships combined.

Academia in the US has become a business, and the business is being run by the secretaries.

If we had data on the median insurance cost per person - I know I pay a lot more than $1035/year - we could hypothetically have a rough estimate of how much the uninsured cost everyone else.

You're being naive. The grass looks greener because you're used to your present day existence. If you actually took a 2/3 pay cut you'd see just how little money you really have at the end of the day.

It's far better to be bored and rich than engaged and poor. Especially in a field which has rapid pay increase potential like finance.

Stay in your job, save a few million pounds, then play barista

Erasmus is under heralded but an incredible program. Similar to the scholar himself.

It's not probably out there, it's definitely out there. One of the absolute best places to be a hunter gatherer is in river deltas and low lying floodplains. If we could magically lower sea levels by 100m, we'd find evidence of humanity not only in doggerland but off the coast of Africa, China, Australia, and more.

In fact some archaeologists are planning future underwater digs based on today's topographical hints of ancient riverbeds now underwater. There's a massive one off Bengal, another one near Ceylon, and a few more I can't remember right now.