Recent submissions

Comment · 3 years ago
>> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.

I am pretty sure it's the source of the money that matters more (legal vs. illegal) than whether the accounting tricks are legally sound.

What you're saying sounds like "at least he wasn't a complete numb-nuts", but that's not much of an "at least" in this scenario.

I am pretty sure the courts will be looking for an "at least he wasn't stealing from his customers".

At least, that's the sane hope.

Comment · 3 years ago
Not sure what you're getting at but 400 mph is 0.178816 km/s. Off by two orders of magnitude from 11 km/s.

I am sure everyone has seen a shooting star. Planes don't move like shooting starts or whatever is in this vide.

I think it's safe to conclude that this is not a plane nor a meteor.

Comment · 3 years ago
So this can't be a meteor then. That's not 11 km/s unless the video has been drastically slowed down.
Comment · 3 years ago
>> So instead of allowing the disappointing truth to come out, the Bank of England secretly funneled money to hide the gap.

I believe that's what was meant by "fake". In other words, inauthentic.

As far as the transformation from "private institution" to central bank, are you suggesting that this was a form of Open Market Operations?

Comment · 3 years ago
I'm only suggesting that the official story doesn't stand up to any sort of critical analysis. Yes there were many witnesses. I don't know what all of the witness accounts were and how those filtered down into the official story.

What I'm suggesting is that the official account makes no sense. Mary Lincoln Todd waits for Booth to do all of his theatrics, instead of immediately screaming "EVERYONE WITH A GUN SHOOT THAT MAN".

I am not suggesting it anything beyond that. But I am not terminally naïve.

I challenge you to look for good historical analysis of the situation. There isn't that much.

Comment · 3 years ago
But the story is that he WAS injured. So fine, let's say it's minor and he's jacked up on adrenaline and doesn't notice.

And as Booth is being a Marvel action hero (a man in his 40s), everyone is standing around twiddling their thumbs? Including the military detachment outside. The story is not realistic on any level.

Comment · 3 years ago
So he was given more time to limp around and retrieve the knife while not being apprehended or shot at?
Comment · 3 years ago
You are kidding right? Of course Lincoln had bodyguard. Maybe they weren't called the Secret Service but he had bodyguards. This was a time of war and the president is going about unprotected? Guarding your most important politician is not a modern invention.
Comment · 3 years ago
I am not a lawyer either, but we can deduce logically that Walmart's lawyers approved it, so it's cool.

If companies are "allowed" to lay people off, then why not this? I'm pretty sure this is within the boundaries of "at will employment". You'd have to show some kind of civil rights violation.

Companies don't have to show cause to fire anyone. That's a cover your ass situation. This ass-covering makes sense with more than half of the US population now falling into some kind of protected class.

Ironically, here in the United States, they have everyone distracted with race wars and gender ID while workers' rights are still nonexistent.

That's why corporations love Corporate Black History Month and Corporate LGBTQ Month so much. They get to virtue signal that they don't discriminate while continuing to rob everyone blind.

Comment · 3 years ago
>> Restaurants can be forced to limit portion sizes (which might also have side effects to improve public health, aka obesity epidemic).

Pricing out poor fat people from restaurants will not solve the obesity epidemic. It will drive them to Doritos.

Comment · 3 years ago
>> wasted because restaurants prefer to deliver too large portions because they are afraid of bad Google/Yelp/... reviews...

Not everybody eats restaurant food for entertainment. Sometimes you can't cook and a larger portion means leftovers and usually more calories per dollar.

There's nothing wrong with large portions. If you didn't want that much food, go to a different restaurant, or a buffet where you can select exactly how much food you want.

And what large portions are we talking about anyway? That peaked in the 90s just like your bug splattered windshields.

Comment · 3 years ago
That sounds like some good practical advice, but also slightly vomit inducing.

>> Economists such as Lord Adair Turner, the former chair of the British Financial Services Authority, have argued that innovation in the financial industry is often a form of rent-seeking.[24][25]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Do they not teach this stuff in an undergraduate business classes any more? "Float" was BIZ101 and in BIZ102 you learn how to read financial statements...

The "genius restaurateur" in the article rediscovered the art of not paying your bills with a credit card, i.e., the "debt trap".

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton