Apologies. I'm not familiar with the alphabet. I just looked up Danish unicode and it showed those characters. I'll stick with 0OO0O00 as my license plate
I am sure if she could pull the wool of JP Morgan's eyes, she could convince Scientist-1 that it was legit. "I want to expense it under Marketing not R&D, which would let us pay you more. My CPA's eyes glaze over, can you uplevel it?" or something
You could imagine something like that happening, but from the email conversation quoted in the indictment, it doesn't seem like there was even a token attempt at justifying it.
No, not for international students. Stanford (I haven't checked others) is very explicit about having a limited number of scholarship for international students: https://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/how/internationa.... Admissions for US applicants are indeed need-blind.
It's not a Ponzi scheme, because those have a specific definition. But it does sort of look like one. And all of the "meme" coins seem to be actual, if incredibly short-lived Ponzi schemes.
Pyramid schemes, Ponzi schemes, MLMs, NFTs, Crypto, Memecoins... they're all greater fool scams. All based around playing "hot potato" with investments, where early adopters push the potato on later & greater fools.
Memecoins are the most fascinating type of it because with other schemes, there's usually some veneer of legitimacy (i.e. you gotta actually try to scam somebody). I imagine at this point everybody involved with memecoins understands they're scam, and they're essentially just gambling instead of getting scammed. Although, effectively, gambling is its own type of scam.
I think you add some stocks there too. Particularly meme stocks.
Many people "investing" in crypto don't understand that stocks/shares give you have extra value because they pay dividends and give you voting rights for the direction a company takes.
Do I think it's the best use of taxpayers' dollars (ie, mine) to screen for objectionable content on social media? No.
Do I trust the government to police opinions? No, especially when there's no accountability and appeals process.
Do I believe the overall benefits that harassment-free international travel brings to this country outweigh the costs of letting in some visitors whose views I disagree with? Yes.
> in Australia where individuals are expected to fund their own retirement,
I'm looking at the official statistics, and this is not what they say:
The government pension is the main source of income for 47% of retirees vs superannuation's 33%. Moreover, the proportion of those relying on the pension has increased between 2020 and 2022 by 3 pts.
> The government pension is the main source of income for 47% of retirees vs superannuation's 33%.
Yes, but that’s because the current superannuation system was only introduced in 1992, and when it was first introduced the mandatory contribution rate was only 3% (as opposed to 12% starting this year)-so a lot of current retirees had limited super because it didn’t exist for a big chunk of their working life, and then even when it did the contribution rates were arguably insufficient. Younger workers (20s/30s/40s) generally have had much more money put into their super, so it is expected that by the time they reach retirement age, the pension:super balance will have shifted more in the super direction.
> Moreover, the proportion of those relying on the pension has increased between 2020 and 2022 by 3 pts.
That period saw significant economic and social disruption due to COVID-19, so I doubt that change is representative of long-term trends. If an economic shock causes a rise in unemployment, that can push people near retirement age into unplanned early retirement-and the people most likely to be impacted by that are likely to be the least well-off, who inevitably are more likely to rely on the government pension than their own retirement funds
HN's convention of putting years on titles is definitely not intended to devalue an article—on the contrary! Historical material has always been welcome here—more here than nearly anywhere else on the internet. One of the best functions of HN is that it helps spread knowledge of history.
Knowing the year helps orient people to what they're reading. It's interesting to know when something was written, and often important for understanding it correctly. Also it provides a nice demarcation between news of the moment and older articles, which are often uncorrelated and go deeper than the mass of current stories. That's a good thing.
For myself: it's helpful to know that something isn't immediately current, and also to realise that there may be earlier discussions with interesting aspects to them to search.
> That reads like ww2 german propaganda. What did you expect. People in moscow to starve also? "Lashings of caviar"? Give me a break.
For better or worse, anecdotes of the caviar delivered by the crates to the top party officials appear in many Russian sources. I don't know whether independent historians confirmed these stories but they are believed by many. For very good reasons, since this is what the party did all along - it's the brutal conditions outside the party HQ in Leningrad that make these anecdotes especially poignant.
> Also, once the soviets repelled the german attack on moscow, didn't the soviets liberate leningrad?
Not until more than two years later. (It was not for the lack of trying - in 1942 an unsuccessful operation led to a complete loss of two full armies.)
It's not about front-running investments _in_ passive index funds, it's about front-running investments _by_ passive index funds, which, of course, ultimately comes out of the investors' wallets.
As a practical matter, since dealing in mutual funds' shares is settled after market, "front running" these transactions would be problematic. (Impossible, I'd say?)
_Workshop_ is definitely a verb, as in "workshopping a play". Its meaning in performance arts is different from office use, but they are not too far apart.
What's your opinion of "architect" as a verb? I was in a workshop once wherein the instructor paused everything to beratingly correct someone for 5 minutes on how you can't "architect" something because, he insisted, that word must only ever be a noun.
