This isn’t actually the case. Congress members and their employees have been banned from insider trading since the 2012 STOCK Act. That’s why they do it through family members now
My impression is that the arrest has to do with telegrams failure to cooperate with law enforcement. Hardware manufactorers don't generally have the ability to monitor and moderate what their product is used for. I guess one could imagine a hardware manufactorer being arrested for refusing to turn over a log of sales or similar.
Obviously god has no such restriction, but he's probably outside French jurisdiction, and i don't think they have an extradition deal in place.
Hardware is quite cheap. Even with bloated software companies are making ton of money.
Software developers like to optimise resource but never have enough time for this as business requirements itself keep changing. Time to market and engineering resource required are bottlenecks here.
Only part of software optimisation which should be focusing early should be cross cutting concerns like logging, monitoring, authentication, etc. Business logics should be separated from these and optimised only when required. Consuming more resource is better than rewriting business logics and fixing bugs.
You are missing broader point here. If something is in production and burning cash, it can be replaced with optimised code if system are decoupled.
But forcing optimisation earlier will make your developers less impactful and loose interest in the project or job. Most business logic code is updated frequently due to change in requirements and spending 100s of hours for feature which will be used by just small set of users is bad investment. This strategy can help you release some feature faster, get it A/B tested and once you have scaled enough you can start focusing on the individual decoupled system to be optimised.
Joe Armstrong (Erlang) always joked that if you wanted your program to run faster, just wait a few years and the computing power will increase. I found it to be a profound statement about shrugging about optimizing things needlessly unless it was absolutely necessary.
This is done in regular stock market too. Fake news, speculation, etc are frequent. Ex: “X giant is acquiring Y” claims with no data to back up.
What’s different in case of crypto?
1. Because crypto exchanges are also clearinghouses, liquidations tend to cascade.
2. It's much more blatant in the crypto markets. See the DRW lawsuit linked in the article - the CFTC is aware that DRW is doing similar things in the CME futures market, but the extent to which it's done is smaller.
I’m not aware of any pundits, that get on the TV to push agendas about stocks, getting in any trouble with the SEC. I’m not sure if it’s just because I have been looking closer recently, or had more time WFH, but the blatant manipulation on morning shows and financial segments is appalling.
Things like saying a given pharmaceutical is headed for zero because their drug failed to get FDA approval, when actually the company had just started their trial and not yet sought approval.
Or pushing a stock then pretending to lose connection when asked what the company does.
Or saying that a company pivoting to online retail will not have the necessary skills and will be facilitating terrorists (name dropping Al Kaida).
Apologies, I forget to check my comments for replies all too often.
---
Example 1: Things like saying a given pharmaceutical is headed for zero because their drug failed to get FDA approval, when actually the company had just started their trial and not yet sought approval. (I miss re-called on this one. The company had just finished their phase 3 trial and were about to submit their results to the FDA) [1]
This one is the most damning in my eyes, and is expanded on fully if you are up for reading a 15 page submission made to the SEC.
---
Example 2: Or pushing a stock then pretending to lose connection when asked what the company does. [2]
No easy transcript to link for this one. It happens a few seconds into the clip. "What does Upstart do?"
---
Example 3: Or saying that a company pivoting to online retail will not have the necessary skills and will be facilitating terrorists (name dropping al-Qaeda). [3]
I've linked a transcript, but the specific part I referenced in relation to a company pivoting into e-commerce:
>Then the final issue is anti-money laundering. Imagine if you see some shady organization buying 100 NFTs for $2 million apiece from the same guy. You know, so 200 million being funneled in. Wouldn't that raise the specter that maybe al-Qaeda is funding a terrorist cell?
"yet another headline that assumes that mice models have any bearing on humans". It's actually the other way around, very rarely do mice models results replicate in humans.
