The Martha Stewart and Mark Cuban cases were more or less the same -- a non-insider investor was given information from an insider, sold their stock to avoid a loss, and were then investigated for it.
The thing is - insider trading is illegal but it's poorly defined.
Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading - she was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to a federal investigator.
Mark Cuban wasn't convicted of insider trading either. He wasn't convicted at all. He kept his mouth shut and the jury found him not guilty of insider trading.
She was sent to prison for lying and trying to cover up her insider trading. If she had just admitted and accepted the punishment, it would have been just a financial penalty.
Her blunder was thinking she was too special (or too rich?... she wasn't really that rich) to have to deal with the laws, so she tried to scheme her way around the punishment.
As I recall, her insider trade only made or saved her something like $64k. That's laughably small, and the final punishment to her would have been little more than a slap on the wrist had she not blown it up by lying and cheating to avoid the original punishment.
I hear this a lot, but she did deserve to be punished. Her defense tried to act like she innocently and accidentally sold some stock based on something a friend told her, but they neglect to mention that she her career started as a stock broker and as such should have been familiar with regulations, and she was on the New York Stock Exchange’s board of directors during the scandal.
It's not some innocent mom who accidentally listened to some advice, she really should have known better.
She was targeted because James Comey wanted to leverage her fame for his own career advancement. Not justifying what she did, but it’s no coincidence that she got roped.
Especially if you get into a specialized trade for people with money.
I’ve repaired a lot of my historic windows myself because of how expensive it is to get someone else to do it. (Quoted 8k for one leaded glass window) I think it’s become my new backup job if I really am replaced by a computer.
I was thinking something like an esp32 + mesthastic / LoRa + REST API on the LAN, discoverable via multi cast. The "landline" is a tablet or phone with an app that talks to the esp32. Separately, a parent with the app does the Diffie-Hellman key exchange over SMS, NFC, or some other channel with the friends who also have the app, and you know their identity. The phone app updates the device with the friend's keys, they do the same thing on their end, and voila you're in business. The kids can talk securely, you can read that the kids say via the LAN, no goddamned third parties.
I do refuse to use a car frequently, I’ll bike or walk because although it’s harder and sometimes scary, there are other times when it’s really great and I feel more connected to the world around me. Also more relaxed after the little bit of exercise.
Personally I also hurt my learning of trig identities and stuff because the symbolic algebra engine on my ti-89 was so good that I could rely on it instead of learning the material. Caught up to me in college with harder calc and physics classes.
I aced algebra and geometry in high school. Next was trigonometry and we had a new teacher who espoused the use of a thick pink and black trig book. It was absolutely alien, as well as ugly, to me. Once I realized the sine, cosine and tangent and co-relations were defined as geometric ratios, I put my mind at rest and determined to use my geometry skills to the max to avoid memorization. The teacher accepted my somewhat odd methodology for the time being.
That was good for a half-semester but then a formidable classroom opponent arose: a "new" boy who had been educated in another state using the very same textbook! I realized I'd have to commit at least a handful of the most useful trig identities to memory to solve problems quickly and remain at the head of the class. A weekend of furious comparison and selection ensued, but that was enough to carry me across the finish line in trig class.
Technology is what solutions are made of. The "nontechnical solutions to societal problems" are the things like "wishful thinking", "pretending the problem doesn't exist", "wishing it away", etc.
(Which is fine when the problem is bullshit and there is nothing to solve, which actually may be the case here.)
Right, I would argue they are part of technology, because bureaucracy clearly is, laws move in scope of what's possible and economically feasible, and culture is entirely downstream of that.
Or, put another way, you cannot "just change culture", not any more than you can make a river flow uphill by pushing water with your hands. You can splash some water around and make a little puddle, but it'll quickly flow back to rejoin the river and continue on its way.
Culture is always seeking a dynamic equilibrium, in a landscape defined by economics and technology constraints. The only way to achieve lasting change is to change the landscape.
>Right, I would argue they are part of technology, because bureaucracy clearly is, laws move in scope of what's possible and economically feasible, and culture is entirely downstream of that.
then you’re using different definition that everyone else, and bring nothing into discussion other than confusion.
>Or, put another way, you cannot "just change culture"
it isn't shaped just by technology. There are economic factors and cultural exchanges between different cultures.
This is purely tautological line of thinking, that brings nothing to discussion.
reply