In theory, yes. But for an extremely bright, driven 18-year-old, which of these career paths looks like the better choice?
(1) Ph.D. in physics (~9 grueling years), then - if you're sufficiently awesome - ~23 years working your way up in industry to become the CEO at ASML at age 50.
(2) B.S. in Computer Science (4-5 years), then get a FAANG or near-equivalent job and start raking in the money.
And if you're extra-ambitions...you might note that every single one of Forbes current 11-youngest-billionaires either inherited the big bucks, or raked it in by founding software/crypto firms. Zero of 'em went anywhere near "uber-difficult engineering technology" stuff, like semiconductor manufacturing.
>or raked it in by founding software/crypto firms.
That's not exactly something to be proud of in life or someone to look up to. Charles Ponzi, Andrew Tate, and the dozens of other influencers also became quite wealthy by finding legal ways to part desperate people of their money.
>Zero of 'em went anywhere near "uber-difficult engineering technology" stuff, like semiconductor manufacturing.
And yet thank God we have no shortage of people who take the difficult path to working on the cutting edge technology to move humanity and the world forward instead of choosing the easy way of moving buffers around to push ads to people for big money, because we can't have a world where everybody is a webdev(satirized well by South Park).
Part of the value is that your competitor is also using McKinsey. So when Ford brings them in and they want to know what is cutting edge, they can spy on GM and Toyota using the consultancy, with a little fig leaf being "this is what we see the industry doing" instead of "this is what Toyota is literally doing." Corporate espionage by proxy.
Corporate espionage implies theft of secrets. McKinsey isn’t handing out secrets. They’re handing out largely public info that’s a pain to compile for high level strategic stuff.
There’s literal benchmarks and industry reports that are more like products. There’s also just chatting with well connected people who know an industry. But most of the time it’s a junior hire using Google to fill out the basic rundown of what peers are doing on a problem.
> Good point! Better sit at home and not even try in that case.
That's not what I said.
And not even trying what ? I'm not saying you can't create a succesful company and earn a lot of money. I'm talking about power. The type of power those people have is virtually inaccessible to anyone. Because they have enough money to stop you in your way up. They have a wide range of options between destructing your business, taking control of it, or giving you enough money so that you stop your ascension.
But the only time that a judge has ruled on whether or not a crypto token is a security is in the XRP case, and it ruled that it was not (at least when it was sold on exchanges). This is not comparable to a ponzi scheme where the legality is not in question at all.
And let's not ignore the fact that these exchanges have done this right out in the open for around 10 years now. Coinbase even had their IPO approved by the SEC. So it's very clear that the SEC treated this as legal for a decade before suddenly changing their position. This seems incredibly dishonest to me.
The SEC has been consistently saying that most crytoassets were securities. The only acknowledged exception, for which it had contradictory statements, is if a protocol is "sufficiently decentralized" such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.[1]
On the IPO, the registration is independant from such pursuits as the SEC raised during their approval. [2]
That said, there would have been better course of action to protect consumers, such as establishing an appropriate regulatory framework, but I may be too European.
The SEC saying it is very different from a court saying it. The executive branch can say anything it wants to, but it's the judicial branch's job to interpret the law.
Important nit: they ruled Ethereum was a security, as the initial issuance was at least partially a pre-sale. They just decided in that one case to explicitly not go after Ethereum. The only non-security exception they've named was bitcoin.
Which seems like kind of an arbitrary distinction anyway.
Suppose you create a new coin under similar circumstances as Bitcoin. No pre-mine. But it's a new coin and nobody cares about it, so nobody is mining it, so you can go mine it yourself and get all the block rewards for a while. Then once you have a lot of it you go about promoting the coin and developing the technology which causes it to be worth something.
In theory the difference is that anybody else could have mined the coin from the first day too, but at that point nobody else had any reason to think it would ever be worth anything.
> "Coinbase even had their IPO approved by the SEC."
The SEC reviews the disclosures being made by the company that's filing for public listing, not the legality of their business model.
You can go look at the Coinbase IPO filing [1]. Under the heading "Summary of risk factors", it reads:
"A particular crypto asset’s status as a 'security' in any relevant jurisdiction is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we are unable to properly characterize a crypto asset, we may be subject to regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected."
Nowhere does it say "the SEC has approved our operations, it's all good!" On the contrary, Coinbase is saying that the assets they offer on their exchange may be viewed as securities and it may eventually result in fines or penalties. That's disclosure.
They are only securities in the eyes of SEC. There is no legally binding court decision that cryptocurrencies would be securities, and, for example, are not commodities.
Yes, and the SEC sued them in COURT so they can make their case that they are securities and Kraken can make the case they aren’t. Isn’t this what Kraken wanted?
It would be more efficient use of tax payers money to work with Kraken and Coinbase directly and set up rules for what tokens should be securities or not.
Like the EU, Hong Kong, Japan and other countries are doing.
The SEC doesn't actually have the power to do that - the US law does. The SEC can only guide on what it thinks the law says. A court is the way to determine what the law says.
[Obviously the SEC can recommend changes to the law, and if it loses this case it might well do]
Bard is terrible at coding. It makes a lot of mistakes but is too insistent it got it right. My feeling is Bard confabulates more often than the recent version of ChatGPT.
The good thing is one can verify the output of Bard easily with the Google button and when asking for links it will give you reference (real or not). Other plus is the ability to access internet, so you can give Bard directly your own document for processing.
ChatGPT also seems to understand the intention of the user better while the filtering (clam down) of bard is very strict.
They will only win if you are violating labor law. Why is that so hard for you to understand. If they hadn’t violated labor law they would have appealed and won. And here you are 26 years later trying the case again on a “silly web forum”.
I don't think that the parent isn't aware of that. I think the parent says that providing employee perks for your contractors _is_ violating the US labor law.
