>Small investors who get sucked into these situations are likely to be harmed eventually, yet the regulators – who are supposed to be protecting investors – appear to be neither present nor curious.
then you are incorrectly attributing that to Matt. It was a quote from Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital.
Can you expand on why y’all makes them feel degraded? Y’all is often used to convey a feeling of warmth towards the addressee or express familiarity, which seems the opposite of degrading.
I'm not saying y'all does, I'm saying 'hey guys' does when they're, in fact, not a guy. Or a least for some. I also know women who aren't offended by it and we've had explicit discussions surrounding it. But being more thoughtful doesn't seem to hurt anyone when there are more inclusive terms you can use.
I can tell you as a gay man I appreciate when people ask about my partner (gender neutral) versus default to wife. Am I offended by it? Not really, it's right 90% of the time. But it's nice that people are considerate of other options when they don't know themselves. And you don't know that I'm gay by looking at me. Many women you do know they're not a man, so you would already know that you're using the male pronoun as default for all people when you could be more contextual to the situation (and avoid pulling the entire history of male-dominated societies and language with it).
The problem I have with the word "partner" is that it is ambiguous -- it could mean life partner, sexual partner, or business partner. Honestly I wish there were another commonly accepted word I could use to avoid the ambiguity. "Spouse" comes close (if the couple is married) but there isn't a in well-accepted gender-neutral term for the other member in an unmarried pair. "SO" (significant other) comes close, but often I have to explain what that means, so I can't consider it well-accepted. And people seem to associate "partner" with sex, so if the couple is remaining chaste until marriage, using "partner" can be offensive. Sigh - English is hard.
"Partner" is a mostly term used with gays. straights many feel strange to apply this term to husband, also wife. Can someone not simply ask about "spouse"? There previously exists term without gender for such persons.
"Spouse" implies marriage. "Significant Other" is a common safe bet, but is a bit too much of a mouthful IMO.
I've seen "partner" being used in reference to hetero relationships more frequently in the last decade, and think that's probably a good development. "Boyfriend" and "Girlfriend" sounds a bit infantilizing to me when used in reference to adults.
My wife and I still call each other boyfriend/girlfriend, but we are old fashioned. We like it because we are an dating (each other), even though we are married.
One argument in favor of using partner is that boyfriend/girlfriend is ambiguous. My wife often refers to her close female friends as "my girlfriend", even though they are clearly not dating each other. It occasionally causes some confusion with people a generation older than us who aren't familiar with that usage.
Partner/spouse/significant other... doesn't make a difference which one to me. I just picked that one at random. The fact that people create space for me not to have a wife is what I appreciate.
So as a married man, I use partner: it fits with my understanding of marriage, we’re partners, we both have a hand in managing a household. It feels good to say.
If you won't throw your ethics into the pit for power, someone else will. And them everybody will be forced to throw the shared ethics or be outcompeted. And collectively, everyone will be poorer as a result.
I'll take the high road, thank you. I'm perfectly fine taking satisfaction in being morally and ethically superior for not stealing someone else's hard work.
I leave it to that someone else to have to resolve the cognitive dissonance. One concrete benefit might be not doing in my 50ies due to stress-related health issues.
And I would happily live in a poorer society with better ethics any day (given some minimum threshold of live quality).
I think you draw the wrong conclusion, even from your link. Your link as I read it is basically saying we are all collectively responsible for good and evil, and that there are supposedly unpopular evils which we ourselves create and implicitly endorse, often counterintuitively.
That doesn't mean we ought to just give up and worship whatever worst thing capitalism produces. If you look at Ginsberg's long history of political activism as an example it's certainly not what he and those around him lived.
At a separate scale from that discussion we need to "play our side" of the game, and that will necessarily involve your personal interpretation of ethics. I believe it is a kind of laziness to dismiss that.
Full stack developer with 8+ years experience (5+ years at AWS). Looking for full-time remote gig within the United States. Willing and able to learn new languages/technologies.
Not unless there was malicious intent or willful negligence. Amazon is a data driven company. The data shows that a “blame” culture results in more incidents. (Airline industry taught us this: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/maintenance_hf/library...)
Exactly. GDAX and other exchanges charge less or no fees to the market makers to increase liquidity in the market. (Basically lessen the spread and increase volume on the order book).
From the exhanges POV this is useful because more orders = more money for then.
From the market traders POV (the taker) this is useful because a lower spread and more volume means there is less chance of buying something they can't later sell.
For the market maker, they make their money on volatility (aka the movement if the price). If they think the price is going up, they will offer to buy at a price higher than the current highest buy offer. This reduces the spread and increases the odds of someone taking their offer. They will then later sell those coins, and make a small profit on the movement.
If they think the price is going down, they will place a sell order cheaper than the lowest sell, and then buy back later, making small profit whole keeping the same amount of coin / stock / whatever.
Basically a "market-making" trader is less in it for long-term, and more interested in making money on the movement.
Aside: You may have also heard of "short selling". This is when a market maker is betting the price is going to go down, but doesn't have anything to sell. In a short sale, they will borrow the stock/coin from someone else (such as the exhange or their broker), and sell it, promising to buy it back later to repay the loan of said stock / coin. Easy way to bet on perfornance of an asset you don't owb, but dangerous since if you are wrong and price goes up, the person who loaned it to you will want you to repay it back sooner rather than later, costing you money!
