The Brexit the UK ended up with was pretty might the lightest possible Brexit. This is exactly because anyone in power rapidly understood anything else would be a huge disaster. It was interesting watching a succession of "leaders" scream that they would deliver true Brexit, be given power, and then lose their nerve only to be replaced by the next "true" brexiteer.
The result is we suffered only 10% of the maximum damage in exchange for 0% of the "advantages" (can't sign our own trade deals, no say in the EU, must take rules, last in queue for access etc).
I think this is actually the worst outcome long term: a car crash hard Brexit would have all but assured reentry in the long term. Instead we will be in Europe for all practical purposes but dragging our feet at the back...
This is likely good news for everyone. If you're pro-crypto, gensler is the guy who had it in for your whole industry and acted dishonesty to achieve his goals. If you're anti, he's the guy who totally failed to deliver on those anti crypto promises and wasted enormous amounts of time and money losing cases against everyone (whilst conveniently ignoring actual frauds).
Every time these cases come up, I ask the same question: what is this supposed to actually achieve and how will it work?
Who will buy chrome? And how will they make a profit from doing so?
Presumably they will charge google for good to remain the default search engine? But then we will just end up in the same place as now won't we? (Chrome being a popular but not the only browser; Google being the default but not only search engine).
So how will this make the end user or the advertisers (don't forget, they are the consumer here, since they are paying, not the user) richer or happier or whatever else?
People seem stuck on "monopoly bad" and that something has to be done. But are not clear on what the harm is here, or how to prevent that harm. Instead, this is something and something has to be done...
Is their any evidence of this applying to anyone other than this specific example?
I ask as I cannot find any. And the email quoted is quite specific ("reviewing YOUR record" and "YOUR policy is being cancelled").
Being on a multi-car policy complicates the logic here. As does the specific location (California has laws limiting insurance rate increases that lead to exactly this).
But it's entirely that this is an isolated change with nothing to do with the overall vehicle.
The fact he has 8 other cars makes me suspect he hit some limit they had not previously enforced...
Nothing but terms and conditions of the website. That's how Paul Holes identified the Golden State Killer, he created a fake profile and sent in the DNA from a crime scene and worked backwards from the results to find a suspect.
Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now.
And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable.
And of course inflation only robs holders, at least volatility goes in your favour half the time.
I also would not call it an investment: there is no reason to expect prices to rise. Bitcoin does not grow in the way a company can (making shares an investment) or pay interest like a bond. It's at best a speculative asset, like maybe gold?
Same for grandpa who got in first with farmland and just sold to housing developers. At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain.
Agreed with this nuance w/ regards to investment vs. asset. But IMHO even if volatility goes in your favor half the time it's still not a viable alternative. If the value of an asset is dependent on what a future buyer is willing to pay for it without taking the implicit value into consideration I leave it as an exercise to the reader how this will end ;-)
Exactly. Brics is more a term used in the west to describe not-us large countries than anything that actually exists for those countries. India and China have an open conflict over their border for fucks sake. They're not uniting any time soon.
> Brics is more a term used in the west to describe not-us large countries than anything that actually exists for those countries.
That’s where (as BRIC – without South Africa, though the countries together were sometimes called “the BRICs”) it originated 20+ years ago, but then the countries got together, for their own reasons, and made it an real (or, at least, formally official) bloc. Each of them uses it for their own image puffing, and its been particularly important in that role for Russia lately (especially with CSTO being shown to be worthless.) Still not clear that the bloc (despite having an official organization, membership, summits, etc.) is all that meaningful substantively.
Question is, what do they do next? The training surely isn't going to change anything. He considers this kind of expression his bread and butter; they consider it professional misconduct.
Will they actually yank his license if he continues to engage in behavior that the licensing board consider unbecoming? And will a court uphold that?
any group that punishes criticism is destined for failure.
Censorship is something groups do, govts and beyond. When the govt requires you to be a member of an organization and that organization does these things, it's hard to argue your case that this is somehow devoid of govt connections
it's childish to call someone an idiot for having different opinions or beliefs, grow up
China has refused to just live accept the US deciding it's not allowed to do AI? How surprising. Washington is pushing to ban something? No, Washington can just ban it. Ban or don't ban, there is no push.
Also phrasing it as US technology is misleading: the current chip leader is in Taiwan and the main kit comes from the Netherlands. No one is after "US Technology".
The US and China (and all other countries) have a right to pursue their own interests as long as they avoid certain extreme measures like actual war (something both those countries need to remember). And like it or not, they will. No one's law applies to anyone else except by mutual agreement. So Taiwan and SK (and anyone else) can continue exporting to China as long as they're happy to live with the consequences.
This is just slowing down their AI, not saying they won’t have it.
China has just built the largest combat hospital across from Taiwan and over a dozen huge air raid shelters. Xi also passed a law that said Taiwan verbally refusing to be under the CCP control is an act of war.
We are waiting for the leadership there to settle down and stop using AI for genocide, no need to make it easy for them.
To be worth a damn, CBDCs need to be anonymous and probably decentralised. Which no central bank has actually proposed yet. All the proposal so far are just the same as cash but with more downsides for the user. Personally I am no goldbug constantly sure bankers will steal my savings. But why would I use a CBDC when i gain nothing I cannot already do with cash (either actual folding money or in an account)?
The result is we suffered only 10% of the maximum damage in exchange for 0% of the "advantages" (can't sign our own trade deals, no say in the EU, must take rules, last in queue for access etc).
I think this is actually the worst outcome long term: a car crash hard Brexit would have all but assured reentry in the long term. Instead we will be in Europe for all practical purposes but dragging our feet at the back...