>> Atleast SBF took the extra step of first funneling money to Alameda and then directing Alameda to send it back to him and then send it to his dad as a tax free gift.

I am pretty sure it's the source of the money that matters more (legal vs. illegal) than whether the accounting tricks are legally sound.

What you're saying sounds like "at least he wasn't a complete numb-nuts", but that's not much of an "at least" in this scenario.

I am pretty sure the courts will be looking for an "at least he wasn't stealing from his customers".

At least, that's the sane hope.

Also if the father is “in on it”, then this would also lead to an additional conspiracy charge that adds him to the cabal.

I just read a page on meteors that said they tend to blow up starting around 300,000 to 200,000 feet or so.

If I make a wild-ass guess that the fireball was visible over a trajectory of about 100,000 feet, that's about 30 km.

At 11 km/s, then, it should appear for around 3 seconds.

I rewatched the video, which is 5 seconds in all, and it looks to me like the light is pretty close to three seconds long.

Aside from that, sure, it could've been slowed down, and could be at an angle, so it may all be a coincidence.

I'm sure you've seen a plane traveling 400 mph but seemingly hovering in one spot in the sky. It's just not moving perpendicular to your vision.

Not sure what you're getting at but 400 mph is 0.178816 km/s. Off by two orders of magnitude from 11 km/s.

I am sure everyone has seen a shooting star. Planes don't move like shooting starts or whatever is in this vide.

I think it's safe to conclude that this is not a plane nor a meteor.

Here's another factor: When something is far away from you, it appears to travel slower. For example, the sun is ~150M kilometers away. As the earth rotates through a day, from our perspective it travels ~942M kilometers, meaning it appears to be traveling at 40 million kph through the sky. However, it's just sitting there in one spot.

>> So instead of allowing the disappointing truth to come out, the Bank of England secretly funneled money to hide the gap.

I believe that's what was meant by "fake". In other words, inauthentic.

As far as the transformation from "private institution" to central bank, are you suggesting that this was a form of Open Market Operations?

I took fake to mean that they made up a sale and created money out of nothing (or something).

This isn't what happened. They took money from their reserves and spent it.

> As far as the transformation from "private institution" to central bank, are you suggesting that this was a form of Open Market Operations?

Hu? No, the Bank was nationalised. I don't really understand what you mean or are trying to say.

I am not a lawyer either, but we can deduce logically that Walmart's lawyers approved it, so it's cool.

If companies are "allowed" to lay people off, then why not this? I'm pretty sure this is within the boundaries of "at will employment". You'd have to show some kind of civil rights violation.

Companies don't have to show cause to fire anyone. That's a cover your ass situation. This ass-covering makes sense with more than half of the US population now falling into some kind of protected class.

Ironically, here in the United States, they have everyone distracted with race wars and gender ID while workers' rights are still nonexistent.

That's why corporations love Corporate Black History Month and Corporate LGBTQ Month so much. They get to virtue signal that they don't discriminate while continuing to rob everyone blind.

>> Restaurants can be forced to limit portion sizes (which might also have side effects to improve public health, aka obesity epidemic).

Pricing out poor fat people from restaurants will not solve the obesity epidemic. It will drive them to Doritos.

>> wasted because restaurants prefer to deliver too large portions because they are afraid of bad Google/Yelp/... reviews...

Not everybody eats restaurant food for entertainment. Sometimes you can't cook and a larger portion means leftovers and usually more calories per dollar.

There's nothing wrong with large portions. If you didn't want that much food, go to a different restaurant, or a buffet where you can select exactly how much food you want.

And what large portions are we talking about anyway? That peaked in the 90s just like your bug splattered windshields.

That sounds like some good practical advice, but also slightly vomit inducing.

>> Economists such as Lord Adair Turner, the former chair of the British Financial Services Authority, have argued that innovation in the financial industry is often a form of rent-seeking.[24][25]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Do they not teach this stuff in an undergraduate business classes any more? "Float" was BIZ101 and in BIZ102 you learn how to read financial statements...

The "genius restaurateur" in the article rediscovered the art of not paying your bills with a credit card, i.e., the "debt trap".

> but also slightly vomit inducing.

It's similar to a payday loan, except for businesses. Maybe that's why the bad rep comes from. Of course with my personal experience the interest rate is nowhere as high.

Great read. The real problem with "the skin in the game argument" is that it's a matter of opinion, but one opinion is more likely to be right.

>> Raising capital to do a startup reduces skin in the game (you’re spending other people’s money, after all).

The more likely correct take is as follows. Note that I am changing just one word.

The right version:

>> Raising capital to do a startup INCREASES skin in the game (you’re spending other people’s money, after all).

The naïve take seems to place no value on reputation (ability to get more financing in the future).

Probably, UBI is the best first solution. In the sense that it acts as a collective bargaining system for all citizens who are forced to trade their time for income.

What exactly are you even saying? What is "rubbish" and what do you mean by "certain sounds"?

People have been paying for live performances of music, i.e., "certain sounds", throughout all of recorded history. So it's the opposite of an aberration. "Paying to hear certain sounds" is a time-honored human tradition. If we broaden our definition of "paying" to include barter, I would guess it goes back to the invention of musical instruments.

I meant that the idea there is little live music any more. Historically people have paid for the time of musicians, not for music. If you want to hear more live music, pay for someone to play at your venue. If you want to be heard as a musician yourself, take your instrument down the pub or onto the street and just start playing.