This scenario seems very different because nobody gave the person any material non-public information at all, they simply deduced it from their experience participating in the trial. This feels similar to the question of "can a passenger on the Boeing jet with the door plug that blew out trade on that information" to which the answer appears to be yes.
Misappropriation theory is the following:
> The misappropriation theory of insider trading is a form of insider trading where an individual trades stock in a corporation, with whom they are unaffiliated, on the basis of material non-public information they obtained through a breach of a fiduciary duty owed to the source of the information
The important part, which you're right was unclear in my comment is that the recipient of the information must have a fiduciary relationship with the source of the information, even if they do not have one with the company in question at all. That's the distinction.
1. The misappropriation theory of insider trading covers anyone who trades on material non public information sourced through a trusted relationship regardless of any fiduciary duty to the company. For example, if I tell my personal attorney a non public fact about the company I work at, and they trade on that information, they absolutely can be found guilty of insider trading despite having no relationship to the company at hand.
2. Congress is explicitly covered by insider trading law, which was affirmed in the STOCK Act of 2012. The fact that they’re rarely indicted has more to do with the legal and political challenges associated with doing so, not the legality of the act.
Fair, but I'd like to clarify that in my comment I had asked specifically for any sources indicating that the PFA limits were put in place by the prior administration, since you had made the claim:
> Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules
Your response was what I perceived to be a snarky comment that if only I had bothered to look, I'd have found the evidence, followed by a link that didn't say what was suggested.
> Look how many people on this thread actually believe that the Trump administration is literally trying to poison them. That's not crazy to you?
The claims made all over the place are insane to me. Yes, I doubt the Trump administration is actually trying to kill me. The world is not as polarizing and extreme as people on the internet want to make it sound like it is. Most people are far more docile in the real world, but the collective hive of the internet exacerbates tension. I have no clue what side of the political aisle you're on, but my guess is we probably agree about more things than we disagree about, if we could detach bullshit labels from it all.
But FWIW, the allegation that I wasn't bothering to learn or see if I'm wrong just raised tension further. I was genuinely trying to determine if the claim was true, the evidence I had found suggested it wasn't, and it seems like it in fact wasn't quite true, but perhaps that wasn't the point you were trying to make anyway.
All fine. My hope is that we can all turn down the tension and hostility a level or two. Might be the only hope we have.
> If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the first 2 or 3 results.
Firstly, this is a completely unnecessary comment. My searches were specifically regarding finding the enactment of specific PFA limits. I will acknowledge to not spending that much time looking at it, as you claimed to already have a source and I was curious to see what it was.
But to the point, this document does not outline or set limits on PFAS in drinking water. It's an action plan for measuring and creating limits, but does not itself enforce anything. In fact, every subsequent search I've done has shown that the 2024 Final Rule was the first point at which any limits were put into action.
Quoting directly, the document states that one of the steps being taken is:
> Initiating steps to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS);
In other words, it outlines a plan for the research that is used to 1) determine if MCL should be set, and 2) what, if any, it should be set to. Notably, it does it not itself set that limit or come to a conclusion about what it should be.
Further, this research appears to be a continuation of research released in 2016 [1], which was the first time that a guideline (but not a mandate) was set. This would, of course, be prior to Trump's first administration. This is suggested in the document itself, where it outlines that this document is part of a series of actions beginning in 2015/2016, as well as callouts to specific research in the 2016 article linked below.
So the facts seem to show that:
1) The first guideline was set in 2016. It was not a law at this time.
2) Research continued to identify next steps for setting a standard, which were codified and shared in the 2019 article you linked
3) The 2024 Final Rule put a MCL into action for PFAS.
Take from that chain of events what you will, but the initial accusations of "political bias" seem unfounded here.
It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states:
> retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS
Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong.
You could have quoted the beginning of the sentence, where the point was about this specific case, and how in this particular case, a gun clearly allowed an assassination that would have been challenging to pull off with a knife.
That is not a way as saying killing someone with a knife is impossible. It's a way of saying that guns allow you to kill people in ways and distances that knives do not.
Yeah I'm not suggesting the same process could apply in the US, I'm just trying to aggressively refute the point that guns are not the problem (or, at least, a major component of it). We need to be creative about solutions, but people have to want to find a solution to be creative about them, and right now many do not.
This narrative isn't helpful. Even in this specific case, it's extremely unlikely anyone would have been able to get close enough to him with a knife to kill him without someone noticing.
Guns allow you to kill 1) multiple people, 2) from a distance, and 3) with nobody aware of the imminent threat.
Of course other weapons can also be used to harm people. Of course no solution is perfect. But it's absolutely incorrect to say "the problem isn't so much the tools." The tools undeniably and irrefutably play a role in every study that has ever been conducted on this topic.
See here for the impact of Australia's gun buyback program, which saw zero mass shootings in a decade after their removal, after 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior the removal, as well as an accelerated decline in firearm deaths and suicides:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
Err, no. This is a serious underestimation of the difficulty involved in acquiring users. Networks effects are a moat. Market share can be a moat.
You don't need to just "build your own alternative to it." You need to get all the content (this is actually not as easy as you make it seem - stolen or not), then integrate that into Instagram, WhatsApp, Slack, and hundreds of other platforms across the world as the supported way of sharing gifs. Then you'll have to build a brand around the product that people remember, and whose website they actually visit when they want images and aren't using one of the hundreds of platforms that already natively integrates giphy.
And in order to do all that, you'll have to somehow manage to convince everyone out there that your gif search system is better than their gif search system that they already know, are comfortable with, and generally happy with. Your pitch will probably be that theirs is owned by Facebook, and is therefore a violation of their privacy. But you know who else is owned by Facebook? Facebook. And yet Facebook is pushing close to 2 billion daily active users.
Convenience trumps privacy in modern society most of the time. I'm sure there will be a changing of the winds - there always is - but there likely will not be significant competition for Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Giphy/Google/(put any other company in here) until that comes. The network effects are too strong, and the convenience is too great.
There are so many posts about "(Twitter/Facebook/Giphy) clone in a (day/weekend/week/month)" and yet there's a distinct lack of commercial successes in these spaces.
Misappropriation theory is the following: > The misappropriation theory of insider trading is a form of insider trading where an individual trades stock in a corporation, with whom they are unaffiliated, on the basis of material non-public information they obtained through a breach of a fiduciary duty owed to the source of the information
The important part, which you're right was unclear in my comment is that the recipient of the information must have a fiduciary relationship with the source of the information, even if they do not have one with the company in question at all. That's the distinction.