371–380 of 901 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chase monitors your political activity This is a big claim. It should have big evidence to back it up.
Just follow any Conservative, Christian, or Gun group and you will see stories of Chase closing accounts for political reasons, Chase is will known for this in many political circles
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We just discussed this on the occasion of SBF being convicted as a fraudster: all crypto is a scam. Them being negative sum games makes them so. Whether the scam is a ponzi, a pyramid scheme or something novel is a matter of debate. That it's a scam is not in debate, that's a plain mathematical fact. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/08/bitco... https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/ htt…
> https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-pon... > https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2021-01-16-yes-ponzi.h... (The following comment is a copy of what I've already said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36951404 ) Points 3, 4, & 5 apply similarly to any investments made in commodities (gold, silver, copper). A direct source of revenue for those commodities themselves is not provided: Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chase monitors your political activity This is a big claim. It should have big evidence to back it up.
At least in the UK, NatWest debanked Neil Farage's account for his political views. Even its CEO resigned over her lying. "19 Republican states accuse JPMorgan of closing bank accounts and discriminating against customers due to their religious or political beliefs" [1][3]. Of course, this site is not favorable to conservatives and their views. Some left activists' accounts are closed as well [2]. [1] https://www.bus…
No, a subsidiary of NatWest closed Farage's account when he no longer met the investment thresholds for the account he held. The CEO resigned for telling a journalist the above.
That's not the same thing, at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The foreign tax credit is provided to prevent the double tax burden when your foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country. You just submit that you already paid taxes on that income to a foreign government and then no additional US taxes (to a limit, I beleive).
It's not that simple. There are a lot more details, but at a minimum you will still need to pay US taxes to the extent that the foreign government taxes at a lower rate. You'll also often still need to pay state income taxes.
To which state would one owe taxes to since you're no linger a resident?
Similarly, Americans abroad vote, but ppl in DC (not a state) cant?
Can I avoid state taxes by sojourning in DC before moving abroad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cory Doctorow has talked about how "they" test these kinds of things on captive "audiences" - mainly children and prisoners - before expanding to the rest of us. I tend to add marginalized groups to that list. Even when a person can nominally be held accountable, it doesn't matter if you can't reach them, protected by an administrative or institutional barrier of some kind. Standardized testing and remote learning mo…
Also the people who are harmed are unimportant. Nobody cares if Harvey Weinstein is part of a dystopian social experiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole post could be summed up as "I make up stories from people that don't exist to justify my selfish world view", and frankly these "people are saying" anecdotes with no facts backing them up don't work well on a site where people research things instead of taking them at face value. If you want that kind of echo chamber, may I recommend Facebook or something similar? 70% (approximately) of people on welfare a…
Take a look at a graph of the US poverty rate over the years. It went down until around 1968, where it bottomed out and started going back up. What happened in 1968? Johnson's Great Society program.
It’s much lower after adjusting for social benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulators fine big banks for "weak controls". To show that they have "strong controls", they have to show quantitative data. Now, every bank is engaged in one-upmanship. Since we don't have data on the number of account closures, we should look at SAR/CTR statistics provided by FinCen. Every year, SAR numbers go up by 20%; that's because banks fill SARs with "transaction with no apparent economic, business or lawful…
Do you have evidence such quotas exist or that banks are competing on SAR numbers? This all seems like wild conjecture if there's nothing to back it up.
"Banks are under tremendous pressure by regulators to file a certain amount of SARS (as a ratio of overall transaction activity, which is determined by the regulator - regulators have a secret bogey for each bank). A shortfall from the number expected by the regulators for a bank will result in the bank being penalized by the regulator as having an inadequate BSA program (even if the bank compliance staff reviewed the activity and didn’t find anything worth SAR reporting on). If the bank fights this censure for not filing enough SARs the arbiter of justice is the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) department of the FDIC or OCC. They rule in favor of the regulators over 99% of the time.) For example California Pacific Bank- a tiny bank serving the Chinese trading community with 200 customers and 500 accounts - was persecuted for more than 5 years for not filing enough SARs, it’s hearing with the ALJ is on YouTube. Even though racist anti Chinese comments by the regulators were unearthed in depositions, the ALJ ruling still went against the bank. Furthermore, banks are required to review ongoing activity of SAR’d customers and file follow up SARs if the “typology” of suspicious activity continues. Bank BSA policies have the requirement that repeat SAR subjects will need to have their accounts closed. Most banks therefore just file SARS on anything that matches a typology and close accounts- that’s just how the BSA regulatory system works.” [1]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/your-money/bank-account-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they have no agency in the decision Everyone has agency. “Just following orders” is not an excuse. If someone asks you to implement something that crosses an ethical line for you, you ALWAYS have the agency to refuse. It’s hard, but it’s critical that we never give away our own agency and control of our own actions. You may not be able to stop an implementation from going forward, but you ALWAYS have the ability to…
>Everyone has agency. “Just following orders” is not an excuse. depends on your safety barrier. In some very high profile cases, depends on your life. I commend people like Snowden but I certainly wouldn't choose to spend my entire life running from the US government in an attempt to be ethical. I have too many selfish personal goals to try and attempt to sway the masses like that.
You wouldn't have to flee to Russia for refusing to ship spyware in a mobile app, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the devs, they have no agency in the decision. Management, for sure, post their name and LinkedIn profile.
> they have no agency in the decision Everyone has agency. “Just following orders” is not an excuse. If someone asks you to implement something that crosses an ethical line for you, you ALWAYS have the agency to refuse. It’s hard, but it’s critical that we never give away our own agency and control of our own actions. You may not be able to stop an implementation from going forward, but you ALWAYS have the ability to…
I'm somewhat surprised no one here views this as an automated decisionmaking problem It's increasingly clear that automating important decisions like this is causing a lot of harm while removing most forms of recourse available to those affected. Coupled with the way automated decisions are used to perform and then launder fraud on a massive scale, maybe we should target laws at the automation itself: Require decisio…
Because it is a legislative problem of not ensuring sufficient rights, such as the inalienable right to have access to an electronic money account with which you can receive, send, and keep money.