Individuals have rights that come from God? Is that a grant written somewhere?
The notion of rights is completely abstract, a relatively recent concept in our particular society. It doesn't exist in nature. Individual humans and other animals have their bodies and minds, desires, ideas and skills, and that's more or less it. The rest are abstractions a la mode that come and go.
Now, I sure like to have my rights, but I have no illusions about them being god-given. If the society needs to dispense with that notion in order to survive, it will.
It is very hard to understand why anyone would support Putin and what is going in Ukraine and Belarus, if all your understanding comes western media. However if you talk to these people, you get a different and oddly fascinating perspective.
Last time I spoke with a person from Ukraine. He was saying that they are at war with Russia. In situation where on frontline they cannot shoot back because Russia would paint them as offenders in media. Propaganda machine is so strong that Ukrainian people living in Russia would believe that Ukraine is now a fascist country and would gladly support even more intervention. In the meantime the country is economically struggling, people are leaving the west for work.
If all sources of information are feeding you with propaganda, public institutions are deeply corrupt and your wages/retirement is propped by petro dollar you get people supporting Putin.
What the West should be doing is to support Ukraine defending their territory. Instead, they freeze conflict for 5+ years without resolution.
Belarusian Air Force fighter-interceptor manoeuvred to signal to the pilots of a Ryanair airliner:follow me”. The captain of the civilian aircraft was obliged to obey. The captain may have disobeyed the dispatcher's command, but the threat from a military aircraft was obligatory.
Banks rip off companies in IPOs by underpricing the stock so their investors get a kickback.
That's the least charitable way to write it, but it's somewhat close to the truth (the other part of the truth is that pricing is hard which is why we have markets).
DPOs allow companies to list at a reference price without losing out on money - they can sell at the true price later.
Banks naturally make up a bunch of reasons why this is bad, but it's mostly nonsense.
When one side does many of these types of transactions per year (banks) and one side may only do one or two in a lifetime (founders) expect the side with more experience to both tilt the deal in their favor and to have a compelling narrative of why it's actually better for you.
There's a funny story (I searched briefly, but couldn't find) that when Elon took Tesla public via an IPO and the bankers told him the initial price he just said "no, at least $XX or no deal". I think the bank price was $17 and he said at least $19, but I could be off on the numbers. They did his price and that price was still too low.
It's a mistake for any company to IPO from now on imo, SPACs are even worse really (unless you're running a fraud in which case SPACs are great).
If you're doing a capital raise privately before the public offering then you can set the terms you think are fair, but this isn't really required for a direct listing unless you need to raise money.
You can list and put up shares on the market later.
I think there's something new where you can list directly and then sell to the public too without the bank underwriting rip off thing, but that's the edge of my knowledge. I'm not super confident here, so definitely possible I'm wrong about specifics.
There are a number of important differences, in fact the only meaningful comparison is that they are selling shares to the public.
The title is wrong, there is no IPO. Presumably "IPO" is meant as "public offering." If there's a place to be specific about these things, isn't this thread it?
I don't know much about finance but based on what GP said, the biggest difference (aside from the acronym) is that one is a fund-raising event and the other is a liquidation event for shareholders. I read the latter as Coinbase's investors said at a board meeting, "Ok, we're ready to cash out now." so they held the DPO.
Kinda. In a normal IPO the big banks will agree to underwrite (that is, buy from the company and then immediately sell to investors) all the shares at an initial "offering price", and this is agreed upon in writing a little bit before the launch day. I don't believe this happens in the direct listing format, it just starts floating with no underwriting process.
So there is a difference in structure, but to your point immediately after launch it does not really matter to the general investing public
In an IPO the company puts private shares in the open market and gets money from it, priced at the IPO price. Whoever has (private) shares now has public shares and can trade whenever they want.
In a Direct Listing the company often already traded shares "openly" but not in a "public" way, but now wants it listed publicly so retail investors can trade it, and there's no immediate need of capital so the objective isn't to get a funding from offering shares in an IPO.
I think this entire moralistic debate is misguided. Granted, if RMS was indeed autistic, all the more reason to "judge" him more charitably. But even if he wasn't, its doesn't mean that his cancellation - based on things he might have said and, lest we forget, a smear campaign by an internet mob ignited by false accusations - was justified. RMS was one of the founders of the Free Software Movement - that is why he occupied that post at the FSF. Not because he was the epitome of high Christian morals - why would/should that be a job requirement in his line of work? Do you want righteous activists also demand they be "nice guys"? If so, time to start cancelling the very champions of cancel culture as few of them are "nice people" (which, btw, is bound to happen if history is any indication). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too...
Disparaging an entire nation as "illegal and amoral" qualifies for being vlagged in this forum, I believe. Not to mention the fact that this is a digression from the topic of the thread into vitriolic politics.
Who says what does or does not stand on its own? I am not seeing any negative stereotyping there, just colorful characters.
You might argue that I ought to be Chinese to have a say about it. And that'd be fair - let's ask Chinese people then! I'd be curious what they actually think. Personally, as a Jew, I wouldn't mind at all to see a "stereotypical" Orthodox depiction of a jew, with a yarmulke and all, as long as it's not negative. I fact, I might appreciate it as an artifact educating the audiences about my people's original culture.
> Its removal came after authors Mo Willems, Mike Curato and Lisa Yee co-signed a letter calling for its removal. They described the imagery as “a jarring racial stereotype of a Chinese man, who is depicted with chopsticks, a pointed hat, and slanted slit eyes. We find this caricature of ‘the Chinaman’ deeply hurtful, and have concerns about children’s exposure to it.”
The point is that this stereotypical description is negative.
