From my perspective it would make a lot more sense to only allow index fund purchases as an elected official. If the economy does well you still do well, but there would clearly be no insider trading going on.
Or at least there would be less - you could only trade on the knowledge of full-market swings rather than per-company swings.
> From my perspective it would make a lot more sense to only allow index fund purchases as an elected official.
The new leader[1] of the Norwegian wealth fund[2] had a large stock portfolio. There was some debacle given the influential nature of the wealth fund.
He agreed to sell the stocks and buy index funds instead, until he resigned from that position.
As you say, I think that's very reasonable. They can still make money off the general stock market lkkd the rest so they're not disadvantaged, but have very limited opportunity to benefit significantly from inside deals.
For further context, he said that the right was doing everything in their power to portray him as anything but one of them. I.e. in the absence of evidence they were attempting to pin the blame on the left.
As a local to the area, a lot of the pushback is coming from the fact that this is not a closure of public parkland, but a restriction from entering any wooded area in the province - public or private.
Is the 'private' part being aggressively enforced? How many arrests (on private land)? I can't find any reports of any. Presumably Nova Scotians are voluntarily complying with the temporary ban.
The quote was "ultimately some responsibility lies with us to think through how those tools will be used". It's saying that we as builders have a responsibility to consider and be mindful of the impacts of what we're building. It's not saying that the maintainer of wget is directly responsible for a system used to exfiltrate data from a database of political asylees.
To take your same point to its logical conclusion, no one is responsible for evil aside from the one who pulls the trigger.
> It's saying that we as builders have a responsibility to consider and be mindful of the impacts of what we're building.
Yes, and my argument is that building those things doesn't have the "impact" referred to; using them does.
> To take your same point to its logical conclusion, no one is responsible for evil aside from the one who pulls the trigger.
Tools, by their nature, have explicitly designed uses, and potential cascading consequences of that use. This is one of the reasons that open-source licenses include a disclaimer of warranty: for the legal protection of the author, not just from claims by users, but claims by third parties injured by those users.
As far as culpability goes, I'm much happier drawing the line in a place where, if you keep applying the same logic you used originally, it will stay put rather than moving inexorably further. Contrary to what many have tried to tell me, intent does matter, a whole lot.
Good rebuttal, a lot of absolutes in philosophy you can just extrapolate out to absurd conclusions on both sides.
As an aside, one thing I notice a lot on internet forums is the tendency to immediately jump to these two extremes (often as a form of strawman). Might be projecting here, but I think it's an attempt to get internet points and seem smart, e.g. debate culture. Though I could totally see that maybe everybody can intuitively see these absurd conclusions, so it follows that there will probably be one genuinely disgruntled reader that that finally reaches their breaking point. I know I've certainly made similar comments.
How do we navigate this line? Ultimately I think the answer can only lie in human experiences, and thus I'm glad that the original article exists. It's another datapoint. (though this spawns a whole other discussion about how we get our data)
The first compounds to be extracted with coffee tend to taste sharply sour, shifting to sweet and then to bitter as the brew progresses - you can actually taste this directly by sampling a bit of the coffee that drips out at the start, middle, and end phases of your brew.
In a world where AirPods are ubiquitous, what value does such a niche product provide? Apple could easily add the same feature to something a huge number of people already own.
That was tried in Ontario (cap and trade), but there was enough misinformation going around that the general populace thought it was just a standard tax on individuals.
Washington State does cap and trade on industry. And yes, it has just become a 'standard tax' on individuals passed from industry to the pump to the tune of 40-50 cents/gal. While I agree that it is important to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, the infrastructure isn't there to enable people to commute from lower-cost areas of living to higher-cost areas of working.
This will likely be repealed by voters via initiative[0] this fall.
Did the people there start getting money every month into their bank account (the “dividend” part)? If not, I imagine that that would’ve cleared that misinformation up rather quickly.
I have a problem identifying what hole tablets have filled, or even what devices they've truly replaced. When the iPad was released, many outlets were making silly claims like laptops will be gone within 5-10 years.
The touchscreen smartphone has almost entirely replaced the landline and dumb/feature cell phones. The iPad has possibly replaced laptops for some, but otherwise it's replaced the... portable DVD player?
I don't see VR headsets replacing the phone or the laptop or the desktop as long as I have something to strap to my head. It's a matter of form factor, longevity, and convenience.
These kinds of statements are why it's going to succeed. Apple hasn't failed in the last 20 years, so that of course means this attempt won't fail either. You get enough devs hyped up because it's an infallible Apple product, they rush to build a bunch of apps for it to get their name out there, people buy it because it says Apple on it, it's claimed as the winner because it's got the most apps and has made the most money. Technical considerations are only secondary at best
Not sure how many devs they’ll get. Of course they’ll get some, but we refocused to invest in PWA’s because of Apple and Googles App Store behavior…we’re certainly not the only devs doing this.
Or at least there would be less - you could only trade on the knowledge of full-market swings rather than per-company swings.