I think there's a tax scheme for part-time ownership of a jet. I met a guy on a regular flight who was CMO of a private jet startup. They flew these very slick Honda jets. But, anyways, he basically pitched me the business and there's some kind of capital gains tax benefit to the jet-share concept.
I cannot believe that this guy was fired on the same day he leaked to the FDA. This means the FDA reported him to Pfizer??
He blew the whistle on the following: some staff were not blinded, potentially unblind recipients, quality control on the paperwork, the patients weren't followed up with.
So, pre-school children are more likely to investigate a conflict if the testimony is provided before the observation than if it is provided after.
Basically, if you want to avoid confirmation bias you'll need to form your own opinion ahead of the event.
If you rely on volunteers, then you are a non-profit. But, if you are selling that work to corporations, then you are no longer a non-profit. However, if you are translating knowledge so everyone can read, then you are back to being a non-profit.
I did my first dives in Dahab, Egypt including at the Blue Hole. This location was my first experience with narcosis; but, it was planned. Myself, my father, and our instructor dove down to 45m and he handed me a whiteboard to write on. He asked me very basic questions like how to spell your name and I remember really having to think hard to answer.
In general, if you are diving to see fish, it's rare to go past 20-30m (the minimum depth to exp. narcosis). The visibility is worse the deeper you go and typically if there is a reef at 30m there is also one at 15m where your oxygen will last longer, less cold, etc...
I don't think diving needs to be dangerous to be enjoyed. It's about seeing an entirely new world and the moving in the medium of water. The people who've perished at the Blue Hole are taking an extraordinary amount of risk - diving solo, descending to 150m - for 'achievement' purposes and I understand Omar's frustration.
The story here is that YouTube does not care about content moderation. YouTube has a blacklist but the blacklist is missing the most obvious terms like "White Power' and 'Great Replacement'. Someone at the company is in charge of maintaining the blacklist but was negligent. Why?
Also, if searches for words associated with White supremacist culture returned videos then there are other ways to access them, why doesn't Google simply take them down if they are already labelled?
Why is it called a particle accelerator when it's possible for the particle to go both ways: forwards and backwards?
Don't they measure the difference in the direction of the particle as determined by its virtual cloud? more energy emitted from the cloud = forward and vice-versa.
Loved the explanation and accompanying illustrations.
This screams fraud. Banks in China offer a product which claims a guaranteed rate of return, yet the deposits are invested in securities, loans, other risky investments.
So I guess its like a bond - I only read the first paragraph but would love this explained.
Question. Do they guarantee a payout (like a bond), but then they themselves assume the risk of the mix of riskier securities? Or are they claiming a guarantee but then offloading the risk onto the consumer and making a false promise?
Unrelated, but even in the US, the standard deposit insurance "guarantee" is not exactly guaranteed. If a small insured bank fails, the FDIC can absorb its losses. If a large bank collapses, they might be able to cover losses, but only if it is an isolated incident, (like Washington Mutual). However if there was ever a large run on the banks (like in 1929), they could only renumerate small a fraction of insured deposits (at most 2% in 2017).
> if there was ever a large run on the banks (like in 1929), they could only renumerate small a fraction of insured deposits (at most 2% in 2017)
The FDIC (a) cannot "cram down" [1], (b) has the ability to borrow $500 billion from the U.S. Treasury [2] and (c) is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. Government [3]. A decision to "renumerate small a fraction [sic] of insured deposits" would be a political call. It's certainly not a "could only" scenario.
(a) What alternative would they have, besides closing the banks? (b) Still only a small fraction of insured deposits. (c) Contingent on its ability to govern. How long would that last in such a scenario?
> What alternative would they have, besides closing the banks?
Receivership [0]. Note that if your bank closes, the FDIC still sends you your money.
> How long would that last in such a scenario?
The FDIC has about $7 trillion in insured deposits [1].
In the crisis, between TARP [2] and TALF [3], the federal government printed $1.5 trillion. (About $1.8 trillion in 2017 dollars [4].) Meanwhile, the Fed bought $4.5 trillion in assets through its quantitative easing programmes [5].
Adjusting for inflation, we probably saw close to $7 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus.
Not fraud. Banks use proxies as a legal loophole to sell unguaranteed investment products that are off the books (i.e. Attractive opportunities they're not allowed to pursue directly). The main side-effect is that clients perceive them as guaranteed and diversified, though they are not actively claiming to be so. The WMP sellers just aren't being transparent, and it is unclear what will happen on a default since the government has a history of stepping in with bailouts.
> a product which claims a guaranteed rate of return, yet the deposits are invested in securities, loans, other risky investments
Like an exchange-traded note (ETN) [1]? There's nothing inherently fraudulent about asset-liability mismatches. From a certain perspective, that describes every corporate bond issuance.
