None of those things have a material effect on anyone by JP Morgan.
The “service” Carta is selling here is your company to other people.
Given 99% of private companies have specific limitations on not being able to do this with a company’s securities, this almost certainly runs afoul of SEC, FINRA, and other fraud regulations.
It actually is Unix, depending on your definition. If you define it as meeting the standard, it is. If you define it as being the same changed code base, it's not.
There is one group which owns an artificial, government-created construct: the trademark to "UNIX". That is far from the final word on what constitutes a Unix. The social meaning of words goes well beyond whoever owns a government-granted monopoly on them.
OpenGroup manages that social construct, the government stuff is just there to protect against misidentification and encroachment. The standards for Unix, Sockets, and LDAP were all transferred to OpenGroup to manage and they've done so.
A single entity generally doesn't get to manage the meaning of a word. The real meaning is in our collective heads, and Linux is a Unix for most people in the field. Even the ones (like myself) who are fully aware of OpenGroup and the UNIX trademark.
In fact I consider Linux a Unix specifically to annoy the sorts of people who think OpenGroup has the last word on what constitutes a Unix. ACAB.
I mean sure. But Gisele's ads were specifically calling her an "ESG Advisor" to FTX.
If you're going to tell me you're any kind of "governance" advisor to a company that defrauded people to the tune of billions, I am not going to pretend you are somehow not partially liable.
Do you feel all employees of FTX are partially liable? Where do you draw that line?
People endorsing products have zero inputs in the decision making processes that lead to these meltdowns so I don’t really see how they can be held accountable.
It’s not a government-run system, so it’s irrelevant.
A guy who got a court-ordered twitter-sitter should probably not be in charge of Twitter as he doesn’t seem to understand what protected speech is.
You don’t get to say whatever you want as the CEO of a publicly traded company without consequences — especially as it relates to stock prices and shareholder information.
You don’t get to argue that a company is infringing on your right to free speech — that’s not how free speech works.
As a long-time Musk fan, I find this unhealthy obsession with Twitter to really be the final straw. The man is unhinged and may be completely undermining all the good SpaceX and Tesla are capable of.
You don't seem to understand the basic concepts of free speech, securities laws, or what Elon Musk is actually doing. Your question is irrelevant. Accusing me of being intentionally stupid isn't helping your argument.
We have a free market, multiple social platforms exist. Ones that moderate certain content lose certain users. You can chose what level of moderation you want as a customer and platforms can choose what level of moderation they want a business. Moderation technology as a service exists already.
Elon is trying to short-circuit the basic principles of free speech because he lied in a way c-suite executives and directors are not legally allowed to lie as it runs afoul of anti-fraud laws. You may not yell fire in a crowded theatre and you may not use free speech to commit fraud or when you are subject to disclosure laws you may not use free speech as a defense for breaking them.
When you are a corporate officer or director of publicly traded company you agree to following securities laws, specifically not making false statements that may impact stock prices.
Elon's antics got him a twitter-sitter and now he wants to own twitter in some sort of byzantine strategy to get around rules he agreed to (and their consequences necessitating a twitter-sitter) and have helped make him incredibly wealthy.
His arguments about open-sourcing algorithms and protecting free speech are not the actual reasons for his bid to take over twitter, he has simply amassed enough money to try to own a media outlet for the influence he could wield with it. He probably also thinks he can skirt SEC/Judicial rulings about his behavior on twitter if he owns it outright. At Elon's level of wealth, the only thing left to buy is more influence.
1000 years from now the last man will be dying on Earth and will have the bitter regret: "We could have gotten to Mars but Elon Musk just had to post that stupid tweet."
It is Elon Musk's brilliance that makes his stupidity so poignant. Electric cars will survive him and will survive Tesla but what he's doing in space travel is so important that he shouldn't undermine it.
He doesn't undermine it at all, on the contrary. He answers attempts for consolidation raw ideas with raw responses. Something that maybe someone should have done sooner.
It would be so nice if Apple reverted whatever regression they introduced in their Bluetooth stack 2 OS releases ago.
My AirPods don’t connect correctly about 20% of the time (at minimum) and switch connections for absolutely no reason to my Mac or iPhone despite those devices having no audio activity (in the middle of an active audio call on the active device, no less).
I turn off Bluetooth on the device I’m not using when I need to do a work call as a precaution.
Every headset I had before AirPods worked better than this.
Glad I'm not the only one experiencing this. All of my Bluetooth headphones (Sony WH1000XM4, WF1000XM4, AirPods Max) have experienced higher than usual dropouts in noisy areas. This wasn't a problem when I had AirPods Pro several years ago connected to an iPhone 11 Max.
On its own Bluetooth works quite well, but where there are a lot of active devices it only takes one device to drown out others. I've got an old Magic Trackpad which reconnects often and most of the time that results in Bluetooth audio dropping out. Since there are lots of people using lots of BT devices now I guess it's a tragedy of the commons situation...
To tangent on the device switching. Are there any headphones that mix all active streams? Why not?
Some guesses:
1. Energy use? It should be pretty easy to avoid complex mixing when only one stream is active anyways. If multiple streams are active then it is probably worth the energy cost.
2. Bluetooth bandwidth? I can imagine that if you are using the same hardware to manage all connections you can run out of bandwidth?
Because this bugs me a lot. My headphones (non AirPods) usually get it right. But even then the switching is often slow. Of course they also sometimes connect to the wrong device and then it is a huge pain.
Genki Waveform is supposed to do this for two streams but it's still at the kickstarter stage so ymmv. (The pitch is primarily for Nintendo Switch users since they have successfully launched three other devices to that user base to date, including a USB-C-to-Bluetooth audio adapter.)
When Apple's top end headphones cost $600, and plenty of headphones saree in the $300 range, I don't think it's a cost thing. I wish there were headphones that did this, that would be a real game changer.
I remember Siracusa saying something on ATP about it's how they're transitioning the driver model in OS X/iOS away from kernel extensions or something, apparently the benefit is more robust drivers in the future but there are growing pains...
