The article cites a study by Business Insider, but the link actually links to a completely different article (from the Atlantic) that, ironically enough actually makes the exact opposite point of what this article is trying to make.
BTC is 0.1% above 0.35 BTC. ETH is 0.25% above 5 ETH. I think we can agree these are not high rates.
On the flip side, the rates for stablecoins (GUSD, USDC, USDT) are quite high still, at 7.75%. But it's not impossible to imagine institutions borrowing stablecoins at higher rates than that.
I've seen this error a lot when working with two different versions of the same library. Specifically, you can directly include version A, but a different library depends on a version B, with some of that exposed in the public API.
PFOF price improvement might be hundredths of a cent (per-share) off of a 3-cent lit spread. But, if PFOF were banned and all that volume were lit instead, the lit spread might actually be 2 cents, so you'd be saving $0.005 in this universe compared to the one we live in.
PFOF does offer price improvement, which can effectively decrease the spread *for a particular marketable order". However, PFOF drives volume away from the limit markets, which determine the actual spread by which price improvement is measured against. So, it's a bit of a shell game.
Concretely, at least 20% of all stock market volume is internalized in PFOF-style firms (citadel, virtu, et. al). If that volume were all on the lit exchanges instead, the spread on those exchanges would be narrower on average.
I think it's a function of employee growth, moreso than turnover. They grew from 35.6k employees in 2018 to 58.6k employees in 2020, so almost 40% of their current workforce was non-replacement hiring in the past 2 years.
What you describe is probably mathematically impossible, but it definitely does not reflect reality.
Facebook's median tenure is 2.3 years, so at least 50% of all people at Facebook were hired during the past 2.3 years. If there were a true 'quota' of 30% of BIPOC during that period (a small fraction of the time since their first DEI report), you would necessarily have at 15% of employees represented as such. By Facebook's own numbers, in the article, that is not the case. So, what can we conclude? Either:
1) Facebook's BIPOC employees leave at a much higher rate than other employees (implying a large problem in and of itself).
2) Facebook does not, in fact, have a 30% minimum quota for BIPOC hires.
Your comment, in fact, would deny not only the implication of the article but even the basic facts therein. We know from above that Facebook is definitely not hiring at 30%, so why in the world would they reject a Black PhD in a relevant field, if the will "just hire any [one], culture fit or not"?
Business Insider has an article ( https://www.businessinsider.com/average-americans-beating-wa... ) from 5 days ago about home buying, but I don't see that 44% number anywhere.