Certificate pinning is actually rarer today than it was a few years ago. You see it mostly in bank apps, and some system services. It’s not a best practice.
I doubt many Spanish or Portuguese speakers refer to themselves in English.
Regardless, sure South Americans can absolutely call themselves Americano in the continental sense. But I know in Brazil for example "Americano" is casually understood to mean from the US, and in general South Americans are more likely to identify as argentino, brasileiro, chileno, colombiano, etc., or as sul-americano/sudamericano.
Most importantly, when speaking English, virtually all will avoid American for themselves because they know in English it means estadounidense.
Well yes. Someone has the other side of the bet, and it’s not 1:1 long:short. That’s how folks could hypothetically hire somebody to kill me, by putting $5M on “floam will survive the month” - if I’m not killed conspirators get their money back, with interest. But if I am verifiably dead, whoever knew in advance a hit man will kill me, that man gets paid.
I found a flip phone in the fry’s parking lot, my dad turned it in to security, who accepted it with a smirk. I had gone through it and wrote down the phone number belonging to the phone. We called the number a week later and the guy said not only did they not have it in their lost and found, so he had to buy a new phone, but he spent hours with Verizon to make some kind of charges that hit after losing it go away. Maybe 2002 - 2003.
There’s a chance this catches on with some folks with blacklisted IMEI’s due to a quirk on AT&T MVNOs where service works for a few days before getting halted per IMSI.
“Code interpreter” is a product feature the customer can use that isn’t being discussed.
They can obviously support it internally, and the feature exists for ChatGPT, but they’re choosing not to expose that combo in the API yet because of product rollout constraints.
> 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.
Huh. The lawyer example works because attorneys have a very specific, enforceable duty of confidentiality. Swap that relationship out and the conclusion may change. As written, the comment slides from "duty-based misuse of information" to "any private knowledge you shouldn’t have," which is not the same thing.
A lawyer (not my lawyer) gave me his off-the-cuff opinion on this scenario:
A pharmacologically-literate clinical trial participant for a novel new drug strongly suspects he did not receive the placebo/comparator drug, based on the subjective effects, plus their own pharmacology knowledge, experience with the placebo, and the research on the candidate drug.
However, this drug was not therapeutic for him, the side effects were onerous, or perhaps he believes the trial will be halted. Whatever their reasoning behind his inference, no details of others’ experiences were leaked to him, blinding was maintained; protocol was followed. He didn’t base this on a lab readout.
Based on his understanding of published research on the candidate drug, and projecting from his lived experience as lab rat, he believes this trial should disappoint shareholders. At the very least, shares may be priced too high.
Can the participant, based on this inference, invest $$$ shorting the pharma firm? This drug is considered the firm’s last best hope.
Their answer was yes, basically. He can trade on this non-public info.