There is no "trillions that go into SpaceX". You and others seem to have a massive misunderstanding about how the stock market works... they could have sold 10 shares at $50 and still have a valuation in the trillions... Market cap does not mean they have that money in hand or even that it is being taken from someone else...
They literally sold less than 5% of the total shares in the ipo by the way...
$1000 would return $1010. The money comes from people who want to close their trades early rather than wait for the market to settle. Often times no one actually takes these offers and then it just sits in the order book.
That’s just one article, but there are plenty more. Do a basic search for "not hiring Gen Z" or something similar and you’ll find tons of examples. It’s easier for people to believe AI is to blame rather than take the answer straight from the hiring managers mouths.
They don’t want to hire Gen Z because they see them as more hassle than they’re worth. I’m not saying whether that’s true or not, but that’s how a lot of managers and business owners feel right now, and you don’t have to look very hard to figure that out.
Clickbait. Leak has irrelevant and useless data. Why anyone would bother to "steal" this data I have no clue. Almost all of it could be collected if you scraped the site over time.
I am assuming its different for everyone. I have had digital delivery products (think cd keys) that were absolutely pointless to fight.
I have also had service products and at least 50% of those are rejected even with concrete proof of the customer literally saying they received the product as advertised.
Heres what I ended up realizing. Your dispute isn't with the cc's or with stripe its with the customers bank. The bank has basically no incentive to side with your business over their customer.
I never saw that table before but that is absolutely pathetic. The best case scenario (5 stars) is a 60% chance of winning a dispute?
Depending on the amount of money I would write off disputes. Sometimes we take to small claims court and present literally the exact same evidence we do to the bank and we have won 100% of those.
I have found it is better to try and vet the customer before doing business with them but depending on the business this isn't always possible.
The system is rigged to be honest. Friendly fraud is multi billion dollar problem that banks have no motivation to solve.
You have hit the nail on the head but it doesn't even need to be wifi and it also doesn't have to be that complicated. They see that two devices are in the same area for a long period of time so they serve ads for other peoples web history. Jarringly enough ever since I had this realization I sometimes see ads for things that reveal something meant to be private of those I had just spent time with. Also, seeing peoples ads when they make desktop recordings of their screen can be extremely telling..
Agreed. We have many "old" people that use our website and I can tell you for a fact that the "click here" is less confusing than some random blue link (which at this point has lost it's meaning because of seo keyword stuffing).
Not to mention "click here" is a call to action and a random blue link is not. Call to actions are important.
Who is more likely to build ontop of some obscure code base called "Hash Cash"? Some random people that trolled the same forums or the original creator of it?
Imo this "secret" is known by many people as I have seen so many censorship and misdirection campaigns throughout the years if people mention Adam being the one.
Him being Satoshi also makes bitcoin core seem more legitimate. He can guide his creation without being formally known as satoshi.
It is obvious. Especially if you have ever been a solo dev for an extended period of time (like adam was)
There is a ton more evidence but seems like no one really wants to dig into Adam.
Adam literally stopped updating hash cash and a year later Bitcoin is released... check his website on archive.org.
Its ok. I like that there is still conversation as to who it is. It gives protection to him since there likely wont be anything concrete (if hopefully he was slick enough)
+1 to Adam Back. Who is more likely to build ontop of some obscure code base called "Hash Cash"? Some random people that trolled the same forums or the original creator of it?
Imo this "secret" is known by many people as I have seen so many censorship and misdirection campaigns throughout the years if people mention Adam being the one.
Him being Satoshi also makes bitcoin core seem more legitimate. He can guide his creation without being formally known as satoshi.
It is obvious. Especially if you have ever been a solo dev for an extended period of time (like adam was)
There is a ton more evidence but seems like no one really wants to dig into Adam.
Adam literally stopped updating hash cash and a year later Bitcoin is released... check his website on archive.org.
Its ok. I like that there is still conversation as to who it is. It gives protection to him since there likely wont be anything concrete (if hopefully he was slick enough)
Adam Back. Ever notice how anytime anyone mentions his name as possibly being satoshi they get buried? Not a coincidence. Plus Adam had no work history during the dates that Bitcoin was created. Had created the system that bitcoin is based on and never produced the emails of him and Satoshi that supposedly existed. Remember the first email from Satoshi mentions he got "your email from Adam Back". Google also manipulated the search engine results for "Satoshi is Adam Back" for years and basically censored the results for that query.. The list goes on. He is the most obvious candidate and likely the reason he was chosen to head core (I mean he literally wrote hash cash which is basically Bitcoin version 1)
I think what some are failing to realize is that many businesses are only now finding out that they are one step away from losing access to their websites. Before this wp engine vs Matt spat many of us genuinely thought that wordpress was a community project and not something that one individual could pull access to on a whim. They wrongfully assumed they had ownership of their website. That they held the cards. This is an eye opener for many of us. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong. I know for a fact that I wont let my company grow too big before moving away from wordpress and I am sure there are many more like me. Wordpress is not what I thought it was. That is ok. I just have more information to make better decisions now.
Why go through trademark rather than licensing agreement for access to wp.org resources?
If they are in violation of trademark why not just file a case against them?
Why the selective enforcement of your trademark? Doesn't that essentially void your trademark?
If wpengine renamed would you leave them alone or is the trademark dispute just a form of leverage?
What entity is at the heart of this dispute? Wordpress foundation, automattic, wp.org, or you personally? Is there any difference between those entities or are they essentially the same when it comes to this dispute?
I am a wpengine user. Why should I trust my building needs to the wordpress ecosystemgoing forward if access can be revoked for what appears to be any reason?
The problem I have with this is simple and has to do with the lack of separation of entities.
Automattic is a competitor with WPEngine.
Wordpress.com is a competitor with WPEngine.
Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation IS NOT a competitor with WPEngine.
There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine. The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.
The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.
It is very poor taste and changes the perspective of the product. Instead of a professional entity who will engage professionally it is now a form of leverage that a single person could wield against anyone who crosses them.
To be clear these same exact actions can be taken against anyone who insults one individual. This look is embarrassing.
They literally sold less than 5% of the total shares in the ipo by the way...