Not necessarily. But I believe they said that the laptop was hacked.

But when FTX blew up crypto went down even further..

much more was at risk as a percentage of market size, market was in worse shape,

You mean FTX?

Yes, typo.

Though in that case the crash was directly due to "effectively altruist" SBF fraudulently dumping customer assets in a half-brained and presumably stimulant-addled attempt to manipulate the market and reduce his liabilities.

Not making any market predictions here-- just saying that it's probably not that useful to generalize from that event.

I think the point is more that when something bad happens in markets it creates fear, which generally leads to downturns (for at least some time).

You can just ban these gambling and marijuana companies that cause harm to people. This article does a good job of summarizing a few, but not all of the reasons https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/09/29/...

why are we lumping marijuana and gambling together?

Marijuana is not zero harm, but guess what: Making it illegal is ALSO not zero harm. The drug war is an abject failure, US consumers have driven Mexico into a failed state with roving gangs of narcos who murder crowds of people with impunity.

"Studies say..." OK. Actually study weed then. Actually do clinical trials and apply science and tell us the actual results. Actually doing that has been prevented because it is a scheduled drug federally. So all we have is folk wisdom and half-baked one-off studies. "Linked to" has no scientific value, it is a term the news uses to scare people.

I think people should be informed and be allowed to make their own choices, as opposed to creating a huge and tyrannical law enforcement agency that will ruin a kids life for carrying a plant around.

Always funny how conservatives are the party of freedom, unless it's something they don't like.

I used to work in adtech and someone in sales told me that DraftKings and FanDuel did not like being referred to as gambling companies. They always wanted to convince people that it wasn't gambling, even though it's so obvious that's what it is.

This is out of date. They didn’t like to be referred to as gambling companies when it was just daily fantasy sports. There was legitimate debate as to how much of daily fantasy sports was skill and that mattered to its legality in many states. There’s no debate over whether sportsbook betting is gambling.

You can always just ban things. The families of those who go into financial ruin from gambling would prefer this.

So how would private healthcare happen without employer provided insurance?

Same way my auto body repairs are done. I have insurance on my car that isn't through my company. I can choose who the provider is. I'm not limited to the two plans my company offers from the same provider. There are dozens of companies who want my business.

Except your company covers a lot of the cost for your health insurance.

They can just give you that money instead.

The current situation is even worse than it might seem: Employers must provide the same plan options to all employees. A high-earner might prefer a more premium plan over a barbones, catastrophic coverage-only plan while a low-earner at the same company might prefer the extra cash in their pocket. Even if some of the cost of the premium plans is forwarded to the employee the cost to the employer is still higher and they must price that case into their calculation of the overall comp package. The market is more competitive, by definition for high-earners. So the employer will offer plans that cater to them. But this cost still impacts the comp package of the low earner. For many years this dynamic has eaten up most raises to take home pay got low income earners. See: https://www.econtalk.org/mark-warshawsky-on-compensation-hea...

Same way you buy anything else without your employer getting in the way?

We use it for sentiment analysis of medical data.

Is that worth paying for?

They know that there's big enterprises that will have a strong preference to work with another big enterprise instead of relying on a younger company. At least that's why I think they believe they can do this sort of thing and get away with it.

I think this article overestimates how much the average person knows about tech. People know who Musk, Bezos, and Gates are, but hardly anyone outside of tech knows who Collison is. Most don't know much about VC funding either, but they certainly can see when products have become too smart to the point where they get needlessly complicated.

It literally says average person does not know who Collison is? It is literally one of its arguments.

What do you mean? The mayor is part of the government.