I was hunting for what Windows libraries used a particular new API and saw it in my scrolling!
You can see all the panic and error strings, and some internal package paths if you run strings over it. Win32k looks like it got split pretty hard into a couple of sub libraries in recent versions though (win32k, win32kbase, win32kbase_rs etc)
> several exist and they track the BTC:USD rate relatively accurately
They are terrible assets with severe discount/premium swings reaching the high 40%s [0]. The ratio's only tightening now that a potential arbitrage opportunity is on the table.
GBTC is it's own weird separate thing, with a whole bunch of red flags. It's not yet an ETF. They don't even distribute the fund prospectus online, it's only available by email request.
This is likely the biggest disconnect between people that enjoy using them and those that don’t. Recognizing when GPT-4’s about to output nonsense and stopping it in the first few sentences before it wastes your time is a skill that won’t develop until you stop using them as if they’re intended to be infallible.
At least for now, you have to treat them like cheap metal detectors and not heat-seeking missiles.
Within individual files I tend to create a mental index of names and purposes from top to bottom before tracing, which usually helps avoid redundant jumping or branching so deep it becomes difficult to keep track.
Not the opposite. The full group referenced here is “US citizens and certain non-US citizens whose permission to live in and work in the United States does not expire," and they went after SpaceX for discrimination against the latter (refugees and asylees, specifically).
I think it’s fair. When a clone of your product is funded by the same entity that rejected yours, it's only logical to assess the differences that do exist.
Had she said “as a first-time founder,” I doubt the victim card argument would be raised.
When startups are fundraising or applying to incubators, there is no expectation of confidentiality.
I don't think it's fair to ewe to speculate on why YC rejected her company. What I will say is that incubators judge many factors into why they accept companies; and merely having a good idea, or good insight into what kind of product will succeed in the marketplace, isn't the only factor.
"Investors talk." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that investors would pass along good ideas that come from entrepreneurs who they don't think can bring them to fruition.
That being said, I do think it is poor form on ewe to play the minority status card. Most startups fail, so playing the victim when the odds are against you, just hurts your credibility.
Discord is the most prevalent and lowest friction communication app for the highest portion of the relevant audience, and will only become more so with every new (younger) developer cohort.
The average 16-34ish year-old probably-male developer that owns a PC with a discrete GPU almost certainly already has Discord installed, and does not perceive any undue burden from being "forced" to use an app they already use regularly, for better or worse: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1327674/discord-user-age...
In my opinion, the best solution is Discord getting ahead of this and letting admins make in-server threads visible to the clearnet.
To be clear, I think Celsius committed actual fraud. I just want to talk about one particular point here.
> So the burden of proof seems to be on the claim that they're the same, or that it's a meaningful analogy.
I have a pair of “Dear Summer” Off-White x Nike Dunk Lows, the last collection released while Virgil Abloh was alive. The SNKRs (Nike) app randomly selected active users for the chance to purchase them; necessary, because they were guaranteed to sell out instantly. At the time of purchase nobody had any clue what the shoes would look like, nor which "n of 50" colorway they would get. We were presented with a picture of the shoebox, a size selection, a buy button, and a countdown timer. However, it's not far off to say that despite this, every single person (remember, only active users got this notification) that initially purchased the shoe did so knowing there was absolutely no chance that a limited edition Off-White/Virgil Abloh/Nike shoe would sell for less than a 100%+ premium over retail on the aftermarket. Completely risk-free, assuming $180 wouldn't hurt your pockets in the near term.
Under the SEC's reading of the Howey Test that omits the word "solely," the purchase of these shoes constitute
1. An investment of money (check)
2. In a common enterprise (check. Let's be honest, the majority of pairs sold hit the resell market immediately. Forman, 421 U.S. at 852-53 may not be applicable.)
3. With the expectation of profit (check, check, check) to be derived from the efforts of others (the ongoing reputation and marketing efforts of everyone involved),
making them unregistered securities.
Naturally, this means Nike has to "come in and register," for every limited supply drop, StockX and GOAT have to register as securities exchanges, and only accredited investors are allowed to purchase at retail. Anything else is clearly a violation of The Law.
All of this is perfectly reasonable because, "the law is clear, we’re obligated…to enforce the law as Congress passed it and how the courts interpret it," as Chair Gensler put it.
I'm probably not exactly reading the terms precisely how Congress intended or how any particular SEC agent or court might but the advertising and messaging all seems very different from anything in crypto outside of NFTs. There's no pitch of using these sneakers to make transactions, or a "sneaker savings account". The "be one of the only people to get this thing" core principle seems distinct. Yes, there's a resale market for that thing - first sale doctrine basically means they COULDN'T try to remove that, ya? - but how much is that their "fault" per se? To me this fails (2) or (3) for shoes (or Pokemon cards or what have you).
E.g. if we interpreted the test like that, wouldn't we end up with nearly any "limited run" product being a security? And that's never how the law has been interpreted or enforced, and certainly can't have been the intention.
So I'm unconvinced by the lay reading of the law of folks saying "this makes sneakers a security too" since it seems no more valid than a lay reading that doesn't and there's been no official indication that sneakers or trading cards are getting anything like the attention crypto did from regulators, despite being much older markets.
Except there actually are people who really do want the shoes not for resale. And that is a legitimate driver of value and it is a very limited market.
The SEC has argued in some crypto cases that even if just a few token holders buy for profit instead of for utility, the token is still a security. Of course that’s wrong, but it is the SEC official position.
2) and 3) don't seem to actually apply to sneakers here:
2) I've used the app before, the fact that someone else and I both want these sneakers doesn't make our purchase of a pair each a "common enterprise".
3) I didn't expect profit, and buying a thing which can be resold for profit doesn't mean every purchase of it was an expectation. All my sneakers are worn.
The buyer expects to derive profits from arbitrage to the existing market value. If Nike shut down the moment you bought the shoes the profits would still be realized, because they don't require any effort on Nike's part.
I made a similar comment almost a year ago and it seems like it's panning out nicely:
> "Apple has been testing overengineered features that are suspiciously well suited for AR in broad daylight for a few years now. If they can't pull it off, I don't think anyone can."
They've reached a stage where outpacing the field is just a matter of reaching into their grab bag of miscellaneous technologies.
