That seems like the implication. Obviously they have to collect all that information for an applicant, and they explicitly state "Managing our career opportunities" as a potential use of the collected data.
Peer review is the heart and soul of scientific research. I do think there is room to speed up collaboration, but we should not compromise the rigidity of the scientific method, especially with as many unknowns as with the current coronavirus, establishing definite knowns is very valuable.
It could be, but considering the developers made the conscious decision to use a static seed and show that seed to the player they are probably okay with that.
Even so, I think that there's enough random idiots making random trades on the market that you could get away with it. You could anonymously post something that sounds vaguely credible on reddit's WSB board and use that as your justification if the SEC asks. If you do a good job, you've just convinced 100 people to be your patsies (and made them a handsome sum in the meantime)
That is predicated on dumb money not trading in patterns that are visible to market surveillance. We know for it not to be the case.
First of all, market surveillance is going to score trades based on profitability and on the expected value of outcomes. If the actor in question does not have a habit of trading options in certain patterns, he will be sticking out of the sea of other bets, significantly reducing the number of actors he can hide in. This will flag money movement. This will flag strange account funding. This will flag strange volume. This will flag strange time the order was placed in compared to the usual trades of this individual.
> If you do a good job, you've just convinced 100 people to be your patsies (and made them a handsome sum in the meantime)
This will probably not increase but decrease randomness.
The trick of avoiding being picked up on a market surveillance is not to hide among others who do what one does rather it is to hide a specific action one performs among a pattern of one's typical actions. That is why a hacker who does not normally trade options will most likely get nailed should he win based on a hack.
Honestly, it isn't awfully surprising. Bitcoin is seen by many as a get rich quick scheme on the same level as penny stocks or OTM options expiring this Friday. It doesn't surprise me that those people are holding bitcoin (in a misguided attempt to double their money) and are ignorant enough to fall for something like this (in a misguided attempt to double their money).
I once sent an insignificant amount of bitcoin to one of those "honest Ponzi schemes" - that is websites which promise a quick return of 1+x% of your capital while declaring upfront that they will become insolvent, that they are ponzis. Just for the fun of it. I got my 1+x% back. The website shut down very quickly, the authors got scared by how many people decided to play this idiotic game.
It's human nature to play games like this. The whole idea of startup "IPO exit" is really just a ponzi play (if you think the company is good - why the heck would you sell it just as soon as the "dumb money" moves in?).
I haven't explored the darknet in over 5 years, but some of these prices seem a bit high. Around 2014-2015 I saw PayPal accounts listed for $3 a piece ($5 if you bundled it with SOCKS proxy access). Which could mean a couple things: PayPal security has gotten tighter, restricting the supply of accounts; PayPal security has actually gotten worse, increasing the actual value of the accounts; or maybe these guys are doing "market" research and determined that their profit margins were higher charging $25 for the same product. It could also mean that the writers of this article didn't do enough digging to find a "better" deal. Interesting read but I'm not sure how much I trust their numbers
That's my guess. On twitter/ig, advertising deals would be done directly between accounts and advertisers, so the social media provider itself wouldn't really care; fraudulent engagement numbers are third-party. YouTube is different, where the host also provides the advertising service, and fake numbers hurt Google's bottom line. So they're probably both harsher on fakes and better at detecting them
Yeah, I'm conflicted on this. Obviously I'm happy that companies are moving away from unsustainable practices, but less than pleased that they see it as unsustainable financially as opposed to environmentally. Which leads me to believe that they would embrace an equally ecologically-destructive practice if it was forecast as profitable for the next 50 years.
..and I'm in no way suggesting that the US has a good track record on whistleblowers. I'm simply saying that it's a major stretch to argue that China has done a better job managing the Coronavirus outbreak given all of the reports of suppression that we've seen come out of there.
I agree to an extent. From a utilitarian standpoint, the economic damage caused by the virus is not outweighed by a mortality rate of 0.2%. That being said, coronavirus has the potential to become worse (more infections -> more mutation -> potential to mutate more aggressively or more resistant to our research) so minimizing infections is probably a good idea. Not to mention, people tend to get angry when you start assigning objective tangible value to human life.
