What conflicts of interest does a CEO or the board of directors have from holding individual stocks? And why do you believe that to be as problematic as politicians holding stock in companies they are passing laws about?
In approximate terms, I think that I feel this way because large companies currently seem to have significant influence over the way that people conduct their lives.
If we're shifting to a situation where companies essentially regulate (and yes, that's a risky word to use in this context, but I'll do so anyway to provoke a bit of thought) social behaviour and norms, then I would see decision-makers in political spheres and corporate spheres as being relatively similar.
Conflicts of interest would arise based on corporate strategy, allegiances, and undisclosed information (not desirable properties in a market-driven system).
Under that kind of environment, enforcing rules on politicians while not enforcing them on corporate decision-makers could be seen as an attempt to shut down existing democratic processes.
This is probably a bit pithy, and off-topic from the thread regarding conflicts-of-interest, but the phrase "no installation without representation" occurred to me a few moments ago.
I think that's a neat way to counteract an underlying frustration I have (and I don't think I'm alone) regarding proprietary software/hardware and technical ecosystems/governance that don't seem open to feedback and change.
I think that politicians should be able to trade with similar controls as executives.
With the tokenization of securities, it could be a requirement that public figures publish their holding addresses, we get the desired transparency and they can trade within the rules. This would reduce reporting load and delays as the real time data could be inspected by any party.
Seems to contain some good links but also blatant marketing just carelessly regurgitating claims from product producers of unproven medical benefits. So calling this even just “mostly marketing free” is extremely dishonest.
Movies that have strategic product placement isn’t “mostly product placement free” it’s just plain marketing, and should own up to it.
I don’t understand why it’s even there, it doesn’t seem to tie into anything and is a sharp contrast to the rest of the content which actually references studies and actual results, and then it just switches to “Oh, and there’s this product the owner claims works” seems very odd unless it’s a paid add, but it seems unlikely to be a paid add due to placement and context.
While this is a “major” newspaper in the sense that it has a large readership, it’s also the Danish equivalent of the Sun. And they are know for chasing whatever they can to get a story and having no morals. Their editor in chief spent a year in jail for buying credit card transaction information about celebrities to stalk to spy on them.
This doesn’t mean they don’t have truth in their reporting, only that whatever truth is there is accidental and just seen as a tool to get attention or exact revenge on the governments which he has a personal vendetta against.
You're right that they're known as quite sensationalist, blowing even trivial stories up to some huge scoop. I don't think it's fair to say truth is accidental to them though. Their journalists did just win the most prestigious danish award for journalism "Cavlingprisen" for a story written for EkstraBladet.
Certainly there is value in having an antagonistic press, but the “gotcha” here is a lie.
Throughout the pandemic numbers have reported how many people where hospitalized with Covid. Because that is the important number to be concerned about, since this is the number that is pressuring the hospital system. This articles is Henrik Qi’s personal “gotcha” saying “haha, I told you so, actually only 3/4 of those hospitalizations are because of covid!!” And then trying to paint a picture of the media collectively having failed the readers for not “discovering” this earlier.
Now this is a lie for two reasons, it implies incorrectly that there was previously a statement that 100% the people in the hospital with covid where there solely because of covid, which was never the case. And secondly it is a lie because the hints that covid is actually 27% less severe is an implicit accusation that someone who has covid and heart failure and is admitted does not stress the system exactly as much as someone admitted only because they have covid.
The punkis wasn’t lied to by the government. The media didn’t fail the people. What actually happened was that the most important number was reported accurately and now Henrik Q finally got another number that he thinks is more important. Why does he think that one is more important? Because he doesn’t care about the healthcare system failing, what he cares about is only his personal risk of ending up hospitalized if he gets covid. And that’s fine, it’s not illegal to be selfish, but it’s not a failing of the government for not focusing on metrics you personally align with your own hypothesis.
It was quite clearly communicated and makes perfect sense that during covid we where looking at number of hospitalizations with covid compared to the capacity to support hospitalizations with covid, and lockdowns and other actions where planned based on ensuring those didn’t collide.
If the hospital system had broken down, it would have helped no one that Henrik could jog along and go “Well actually 27% of the people that can’t get treatment for covid or other illnesses only need that because of the other illness not because of covid”
Anyways I appreciate your perspective but I’ll stand by my viewpoint. The truth contained in this reporting is incidental to their agenda, it’s not the focus of it at all.
In my own European country most people certaintly do not know what distinction is made by the health authories around "with" versus "from" covid. We also no longer have data on the effects per comorbidity. Broken down per vaccine or if had prior infection. Even speaking of side effects was completely verboten. Everything is kept very nebulous and I believe it is mostly because of incompetence, but also some malice and distrust of the public to handle the truth.
So no, any reporting that seeks to puts their feet to the fire and clarify their data is important, and if it gives someone clicks good for them. I want the press to ask questions, not just parrot the media conference.
In y opinion that would be better served with ‘’.join(
‘hello’,
‘world’)
No footgun potential, and as others have mentioned the “good usage” would often be bad simply because it ends up looking like a mistake even if it’s intentional.
Oddly enough no. I would have though that had been thought I to the design since it’s such a natural extension. But no, the CEO has TikTok’s playing Valorant, and he’s using a mouse and only the left side. Which also makes it slightly odd when he makes claims like “characorder helped me win” because when has the speed of keyboard entry ever been the limiting factor in an FPS?
All of that has to to exclusively with techniques for improving speed when playing with the traditional controller. As soon as you can use another input device there is no need for that.
> “If a $1000 PhD side project could kill millions of people, we must end viral [gain-of-function research], or it may end us.”
This sentimental reminds me of a talk given by a government bomb expert where a naive student asked “why do we allow the ingredients for bombs to be sold in store, shouldn’t we ban them all?”
The answer of cause is that if we do that, then we suddenly don’t have gasoline, orange juice, basic electronics, fertilizer or even just basic sanitation products available anymore, but of cause anyone who wanted to make a bomb would still be able to do so easily.
If it really is the case as pitched that 1000$ gets you a virus that will bring down nations, why on earth would we leave the field only to bad actors? Would that not just make it ever so more important that such researched happened openly and under well funded, strictly controlled conditions so we know what to expect and so we can start to develop plans for counter measures for when the next 9/11-like fanatic driven attack comes along?
I don't know if this is truly the case (outside my area of expertise), but the article claims that most of the benefits of gain-of-function research can be realized through much safer methods. If true, the "good guys" don't really lose much by refusing to do what the "bad guys" might be doing.
If we're talking about a deal that would include ByteDance's business in the west, like the deal Trump wanted to happen, then I doubt current regulators would let Google be the one buying just because of its market share in the digital ads business.
And there's absolutely no way Google would be able to buy ByteDance itself.
I think it’s ok to select jurors based some basic abilities. I don’t know if this considered discrimination based on IQ in the US. But if a grown person has the mind of a 5year old or doesn’t know how to walk up stairs I think it’s fair to say “you shouldn’t be in a jury”. Likewise if a person doesn’t understand the concept of zooming an image or slow motion, then I think it’s quite fair to exclude them from jury duty.
> It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events.
True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.
If you buy the Mona Lisa and get a certificate of ownership with a reference to the painting, you would not say that this certificate was art.