Maybe maybe not but people have always predicted the demise of Bitcoin, eventually someone will be right, but just because someone guessed right didn't make them some sort of prognosticator.
Considering that the markets have been taking a massive beating across the board the reason for bitcoins recent drop isn't quantum.
I can't answer specifically for their reasons but the general reason for things like this is regulations and compliance. There is a whole pile of compliance and regulations depending on your company and industry and funding and all kinds of nonsense you have to go through when engaging with companies outside of the US or employing people outside of the US. Some industries and companies never have to worry about it but others they might have to worry about it and some definitely have to worry about it. So it is oftentimes easier to just lump everyone together and say you must be in the US or you must be a US citizen. Then the compliance regulations can get a lot easier.
I understand the need for restrictions in industries like defense, space, or healthcare, where compliance is crucial. However, I’m curious because this requirement seems to appear even for more general roles, like front-end positions at SaaS startups. What’s the logic behind applying such a restriction in those cases?
Regulations follow the money and it's infective. So even in what could seem to be unrelated things depending on the funding or the partnerships or the relationships of those companies they may be under the same compliance burdens. The embargo lists are insanely bizarre.
I suspect a lot of it comes down to how they phrased the question. At this point I think a lot of people have given up on the idea of ownership of their own data, including in the EU. So when you've mentally prepared yourself in a way that you already don't own this thing the value on it goes down quite a bit.
If you were to preface the question with a proposition such as; companies are only allowed to request the minimum amount of personal information in order to business and they are only allowed to retain that online for the minimum amount of time required. Companies that request more than the minimum required or retain it online longer than the minimum required face a 100,000 Euro fine per incident paid to the person whose personal data was violated.
Given this, you could optionally opt to sell your personal data so companies could freely use it and retain it until you opt out. What is the monthly price that you would sell your personal data for so companies could use it anytime they want without request?
I suspect you would get a completely different answer. Where people would now value their data very highly because how the scenario is framed. When you frame a scenario as if your personal data has no value you basically set the market for people in their mind.
I don't think anyone actually read the law including the Forbes article. Apparently my previous comment no one seems to understand even the most perfunctory things about the law.
There is no general prohibition about using the seal of the United States. It is only violating these provisions when you use it in a way where a reasonable person would believe it is being endorsed by the United States government.
Clearly based upon the insanity in these comments no one believes that these things are actually endorsed by the government they're just upset at Trump and they're upset at the usage of the seal. Not liking it doesn't violate the law you actually believing that these things are somehow part of the federal government would. As you all represent reasonable people and clearly don't believe this including the author of this article it's just this vague threat that it could violate the law.
If you want it to violate the law you're going to have to be a lot dumber than you actually are or find a bunch of dumber people. Then you would have a case where you could show that these reasonably dumb people believe these are things from our federal government.
Your feelings about something aren't what matters. Try and set them aside.
You snip out the important bits. It's not that no one can use the great seal It's that if it's used in such a way where a reasonable person wouldn't believe whatever the item is is actually represented to be by the federal government.
If the reasonable person would not consider it to be something by the federal government then you are totally allowed to use it. It is one of the consequences of free speech and having a public government. Because this doesn't fall under normal trademark law or even a normal copyright.
So it very much becomes a question for the courts to answer. People's political bias doesn't factor into it. The courts measurement of a reasonable person standard is what does.
Instead of the percentage of income at retirement offer the option of a monthly value. The percentage makes sense if you're planning on remaining in the same locality and attempting to stay at your same lifestyle level. A monthly value makes more sense if your plan is to move to an area with a significantly different cost of living and/or significantly change your current lifestyle.
The other suggestion would be around social security, investment accounts other retirement income and the age in which these apply. It appears that it starts factoring in at the age you specify retiring at. It would be more accurate to factor that in starting at a specific age. For example if I had stocks and a 401k and social security. These all have different points in which you should take out of them for the best benefit. If I wanted to retire at 55 I need to know how long my stock portfolio could maintain my lifestyle and then at 59 and a half I can begin to factor in my 401k. Then depending on my age and what kind of social security benefit level I want I would factor it in at that time.
This would provide the best visualization to see exactly how things will pan out.
Thanks you, this is constructive feedback. I am making a more comprehensive version of the FIRE calculator and we will use taxable investments first, then retirement funds. You suggestion on letting user enter a monthly number is also sound.
I think everyone knows that most people hate AI but a lot of people use it because they feel they don't have a choice.
My problem with AI is that it could be such a valuable tool but every implementation, besides trying to run your own in your own basement, seems like it is geared toward kindergartners. The kind of censored nonsense it spouts off or just blatantly trying to prevent you from getting any good information out of it blows my mind. People talk about AI hate but if you dealt with another person that responds to you like AI does you would genuinely start to hate that other person.
I was asking it some simple questions about understanding some open source software. It starts squawking back to me about security and stability of software and so it doesn't want to answer me on modifying this. So I literally have to argue with it about the entire concept of open source to get it to give me an answer. When it did give me an answer it was incredibly vague. So I went and dug into the software myself and then responded back to it that the answer I was seeking was incredibly simple and the software was already geared to be modified in the way that I wanted. Then it responded of course it is and it gives me an example for how I want to modify it.
This is why people hate AI. Because it is utter nonsense until you go and do all of the legwork and then it will just agree with you. Nobody wants that kind of sycophant in their life. I want it to be an assistant that will assist me in what I'm doing. At this point AI is less helpful than a junior worker that is moderately resourceful and it takes more of my time to deal with it.
Everyone hates AI because of this nonsense and until these companies start letting it act like someone who can hold advanced conversations as if they were university level people we will continue to hate AI. It's like it's there to intentionally make people stupid instead of assisting them in being something better.
That nebulous label is creep has been dismissed by any reasonable person. Because the same words spoken by two different people and it's creepy in one case and not in the other all through the subjective lens of the receiver. Something that is impossible to know in advance.
So if you have actual evidence of inappropriate things that have been said, especially after someone has indicated it's unwelcome, please share that for everyone to see. Otherwise you're just spouting nonsense with nothing to back it up except arbitrary feelings.
Sorry you didn't want to be approached by Richard Stallman but even people who look like Richard Stallman are allowed to shoot their shot without being called a creep.
Bouncers at various Boston area science fiction conventions have had to physically remove him from rooms because of where he puts his hands. I've spoken with three staffpeople who have done so on different occasions.
So they dismiss older generations complaining about younger generations but then they give the woe is me older generations never had it as hard as we younger ones.
Younger generations have always had an easier time at literally everything. The complaint about AI culling resumes discounts the fact that it used to be a human that would just throw them away. At least with the AI you have a chance of saying the right thing to get past that level. Depending on the job you're going for that might be the first test to show if you're capable of doing the job.
It's kind of like when employers put on time trackers on your workstation or other such things too ensure you're staying busy and productive. I honestly don't believe that it is actually about tracking whether employees are busy because any employee you would want to work for you would know how to bypass that or make it seem like you're productive when you're not. Those who are not intelligent enough to do that aren't worth keeping around.
There is some truth to both sides of this. Older generations are more critical of younger generations but younger generations also have more advantages and tend to not work as hard.
One of the biggest problems that I've seen with younger people is that they immediately default to asking someone else instead of bothering to do any perfunctory level of research themselves. It's like they're trained to only phone a friend and never learn and research for themselves. Because when they have to learn and research for themselves it's hard and they give up and they complain that it's too hard. Then of course I'm considered passive aggressive when I copy and paste the link to the documentation that answers their question.
They grew up in a world where they did not have to value anyone's time. They had instant access to anyone through some sort of messaging system so they never had to learn to be self-sufficient or at least attempt to be self-sufficient before they go and engage someone else. That propagates everywhere. That basic attitude says things like finding a job is hard without realizing it's probably easier if you just put in the effort to learn what the AI was looking for.
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
Just because it applied 2500 years ago it doesn't make it not true. I think there's some fallacy that people can cite that this happens most generations and then indicate that it must not be a true thing.
What's closer to the truth is that each generation hopes to make life easier for the subsequent generations. The effect of that is all of the things that we complain about. More than one thing can be true at the same time. As things get easier people get lazier. It is only a natural thing. That can be demonstrated over and over in society. That can be demonstrated over the generations. So what was true 2,500 years ago still is true today.
Considering that the markets have been taking a massive beating across the board the reason for bitcoins recent drop isn't quantum.
reply