It’s similar in that they’re both bullshit legal maneuvers, but beyond that it’s definitely quite different.

There’s a real problem right now with large tech companies, but they have so much control right now, that technological development, especially digital security has warped around necessitating their continued existence.

Take every service google has ingested, imagine those were all separate companies, still linking with each other. It’s orders of magnitude more points of failure for things like data leaks.

A breakup should happen, but it’s going to be really tricky to implement.

The theory as I’m sure you’re aware (but some posters might not be) is that competition should motivate companies to fix stuff like that. While government doesn’t have the same profit incentive.

In the real world things don’t work out that way because governments use those private profit driven services, and don’t have nearly the same level of oversight, while private companies don’t get any competitive advantage for all their mistakes to be looked for and made public.

And so mistakes happen and get ignored all the time.

Unlike what Texas and Florida would have you believe with their migrant busses, seeking asylum is a legal method to get into the US.

The process is basically that someone shows up at the border, claims asylum, and they’re asked if they believe they’re persecuted (not are, that they believe they are) for any of several reasons.

Then they can stay in the US legally and work for up to a year, with travel restrictions, while waiting for a court case to determine if it’s a valid asylum claim. If it is, they continue to stay. If it isn’t, they’re deported.

Because they didn't sign off. And they can't be asked to do so because the cartels would likely hear about it.

Yes and no. They had terms of service regarding using depositors funds. Financial regulations or not, that was theft, and they've already admitted to it, in addition to the corporate fraud.

SBF is in a lot of trouble, regulations are just an additional set of laws for an industry to adhere to, not the only laws.

That's going to be real hard when his interview tour had him admit to all sorts of shit.

Not for lack of trying. The Pentagon does try to account for the money, and in fact they can with enough looking. But it’s the most complex accounting system in the world, plagued with legacy systems that don’t talk to other legacy systems, doesn’t have a way to move those systems to newer systems, and so on.

A bunch of companies have tried to come in and build new accounting systems for the Pentagon, every single one of them has either dropped the bid after looking at the problem, or been unable to fix it.

It’s probably an unfixable problem.

He did that yes, but he was literally on the streets shouting. In Austin in the 90's and early 00's it was one of the local sites.

There’s one for EU4 and other paradox games

That's literally how Alex Jones got started. He started on street corners in Austin screaming his nonsense and handing out xeroxed pamphlets on the secret cabals of moloch worshippers.

Shit as an investment? Sure.
Shit in terms of value to the public? Sure.

Shit as a company? I would have to argue no. They were stable, in business for 16 years, had cash on hand to fund current operations for another 10 years, kept people employed, and developed multiple technologies that are now industry standard for web development.

Ignoring their product themselves (which I think is probably neutral, but is far too indepth a discussion for Reddit, regarding the good versus bad it enabled), that's basically what corporations are supposed to philosophically do for society: Employ people and improve the business sector as a whole.

At least for the moment, Musk has disrupted all of that. But, in terms of whether or not that was a good business decision for him, all we can really do is speculate while we wait and see.

It mostly broke even until Musk bought it. The initial debt the company had to take on increased their annual expenses by quite a bit. Followed by the loss in advertiser revenue which further hurt them.

Naa. I’m as anti crypto as you can get, and exchanges are still a good deal more sketchy than even the more speculative coins out there.

Exchanges exist primarily to let people bypass blockchain limitations, when it’s those very limitations that are what allow crypto to deliver on any promised benefits. Basically, whether you agree that there are benefits to crypto or not, the benefits of all transactions being on a ledger, security, and so on rely on the blockchain actually being used.

A market where such an idea can prove successful or not can’t exist with exchanges in the picture, and it never could.

That said, a lot of people like them for the convenience. Despite the fact that every single one of them has proven to be a scam.

In this case, fining the companies with the breach isn’t enough. Need to hit Facebook as well for building and selling this shit.

How about they just get rid of their water polo team? Maybe give the space to an international airport.

The problem with the Hatch Act is that it's a joke, since charges largely stem from if the President agrees with the persons violation or not. And as long as the violation is in line with the views of what the President wants, they'll never see it that way.

It's a good idea in theory, but as written it's borderline unenforceable, and has next to no consequences when enforced.

Was. Replicarter took care of that.

Get the word out, and get pissed off. Elect politicians to change the laws regarding what these companies are legally allowed to do.

That's a fix in 10 years, if enough agree with you.

It might be possible if one were on a trajectory to hit Japan (it's not really proven one way or the other). But, North Korea is basically just trying to provoke a response like that. North Korea doesn't actually want to hit Japan in an attack so they either shoot really high where interception can't reach, or they shoot into the ocean "near" Japan a ways over them.