401–410 of 489 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is to the point I made on the patriot act. You support the redistribution of consequences and I don’t, that’s what makes us different.
I don't know how you call preventing DPRK and Russia from getting money "redistribution of consequences." That's what makes us different.
Surprised CZ owns 100% of CryptoMarketCap - that seems ripe for manipulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any sane person who realizes that their job is to be thrown under the bus has two options: Either go along with it and be a conspirator, secure your means of getting away, or start talking to the law enforcement to cover your ass. The people running Binance should have realized that the first option did not happen and they should have prepared for the second option. Although it is good that this didn’t happen, SEC no…
I suspect Binance is prepared and they will simply not comply. Nothing is physically in the US to be seized (except maybe the binance.us domain).
The same thing will happen to Coinbase. Just look at the backgrounds of their CXOs. None are qualified to be leading such a large company IMO. I bet my life the same shit is going on over there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has done a pretty good job of making the process very easy: https://www.foia.gov/ But, just like with ChatGPT, you'll likely have to do a bit of "prompt engineering" to get a specific document. "Give me all the stuff you guys got on UFOS1!!" will likely be less fruitful then "I am requesting the email correspondence between X and Y related to the documented observation of an atmospheric event occurring…
How broad can the request get? Can I ask for any communications that are related to a decision made or drafting of something that goes into the CFR? How much should I expect to pay for these requests, especially while figuring out the prompt engineering?
>For a typical requester the agency can charge for the time it takes to search for records and for duplication of those records. There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication.
>You may always include in your request letter a specific statement limiting the amount that you are willing to pay in fees. If an agency estimates that the total fees for processing your request will exceed $25, it will notify you in writing of the estimate and offer you an opportunity to narrow your request in order to reduce the fees. If you agree to pay fees for a records search, you may be required to pay such fees even if the search does not locate any releasable records.
For requests that the receiving agency doesn't like, they will either ask for a lot of money or just sit on the request for years/decades: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2019-03-08/25-year...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we have a different understanding of the word "rely"? You didn't even use the word "BASED". When you say: > It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents. Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon? They're obviously relied upon when.. something related to contracts is in dispute.
> You didn't even use the word "BASED". What?! > The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment? > Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon? Why would they…
> Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?
I said you didn't use it in the statement describing civil law.
I didn't bother tackling "common law is based ..." because frankly if I tackled every inaccuracy in your statements, I'd be here all day.
You were opining on the merits of civil law, by describing an "ideal" model of system which doesn't exist in any of the countries you've mentioned.
You attempted to exclude principles, which even if they don't exist in the same form, that are still present in those other country's judicial apparatus-- just with different weights and state supervisory organs.
> I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:
The site is actually having problems at the moment for many, including me, you're likely not being targeted specifically-- unless you're getting an explicit error indicating so.
> The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.
They used it to describe how it goes un-used, outside of France in this specific instance, don't misrepresent the article.
> At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...
Where? Don't blame me for your inability to articulate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's stupid is that quotes like this, not actual substance of what their business practices are, are the only way the SEC can establish what is and isn't a "security." there is no real truth or objective test and the SEC has offered no meaningful guidance. so they just determine this based on subjective emails the CEO sent once.
I love that, at most it establishes that they think that they engage in securities dealings but what if they're actually mistaken in that regard or merely speak that way as a shorthand for recognizing that others, namely the SEC itself, thinks of them as securities dealers or whatever. Leaning on their self identification alone does sound weak when we surface these points out in the open. We have no objective test li…
The same thing will happen to Coinbase. Just look at the backgrounds of their CXOs. None are qualified to be leading such a large company IMO. I bet my life the same shit is going on over there.
If you came from the future to tell me that coinbase would be shut down 5 years ago, I wouldn’t have believed you.
But after the last few years (NFT stuff, allowing sketchy coins and tokens to be pumped and dumped in their platform), it feels like it’s a matter of time.
It’s going to be a much more complicated case than binance’s, but it feels inevitable that they’ll be held accountable. It’s a shame, they had so much goodwill going in to 2020.
Maybe the best time to start a crypto exchange will be in 2025. (:
Tomorrow's Levine's Newsletter will be sweet :D Btw, is there a single bitcoin exchange who is operated by people that do not behave like teenagers?
Bisq. Any centralized crypto exchange will ultimately end up being a scam because there is no reason for centralized exchanges to exist at all. There is no reason for anyone to hold your funds for more than what it necessary to complete a transaction. Because of this, there is really no money to be made.