>people won't see it.

You are correct because it's happening already (massive wildfires burning down cities, 100 year floods every year, mass migration out of hot, dry climates) and the news will state something like "scientists are 85% certain this fire was accelerated by climate change" and then will move onto the next story. Climate change is all around us, but we refuse to see it.

>That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways.

I disagree. Slow bleeding just means everyone in the company walks around thinking they are next, never knowing when the next set of cuts are going to happen or when they are finished. Cutting 40% is a quick blow, and everyone that is left knows they are safe.

Attrition by definition implies no cuts: just people leaving for the usual reasons people leave, and not replacing them. Attrition can be accelerated by providing incentives like exit bonuses.

"flowed from two Binance accounts to Iranian entities with links to terrorist groups, a possible violation of global sanctions."

"Global sanctions" being US sanctions? Which one of those are the ones that apply to entities in Malta, or wherever there HQ "isn't"?

Yeah basically, but weaponised globally through the dollar system. Basically, if you interact with sanctioned entities you get cut off from banks with dollar assets (basically all of them).

This is how the financial system currently works.

So going back to the original question, "Is Iran supposed supposed to be banned on Binance?" still doesn't have a clear answer?

It might be that Binance are OK with being cut off from banks or what not, and since there is no thing like "global sanctions", and Binance doesn't seem related to the US either legally or by the individuals running the company, they probably don't need to have Iran banned?

> So going back to the original question, "Is Iran supposed supposed to be banned on Binance?" still doesn't have a clear answer?

I mean, theoretically not, but practically yes. Basically every bank has dollar reserves and as such get caught up in the sanctions screening process. Again, sanctions are most problematic for entities when used by the US, but the EU and other governments also do this, and if you want to transact in a governments currency, then you need to follow the sanctions laws (severe violations can lead to license revokation which basically kills your business).

Unless you have no connection to the fiat ecosystem, then you are gonna end up subject to these laws. And if you have no connection to the fiat ecosystem, you won't be a particularly useful service to most people or businesses.

Ok, but isn't that then up to Binance to decide themselves, if to allow that to happen or not? Lots of people here seem to assume because US embargoes say this or that, means Binance should obviously make one particular choice, but shouldn't that be up to Binance and/or whatever jurisdiction they're in, in actuality?

It's totally up to binance, but being absolutely unable to transact in dollars is a pretty harsh penalty. Normally prison sentences are involved for whoever the head of the US entity is.

When I think about it, I know people that have been involved in all of those areas (always on the wrong non-criminal end). However, I'm not sure I know a single person that has made a regular transaction in some cryptocoin.

The currency part of cryptocurrency was always a lie.

I did once. Even after setting up a wallet and buying BTC (this was back in the mid-2010s), it still took 15 minutes to pay for two glasses of wine at a cafe. I could have just tossed down €5 and been done with it in 20 seconds.

The irony is that Trump won on a message of "drain the swamp" which was supposed to address this issue. Instead it seems like it's more of just "replace the swamp" with his own guys.

I think the swamp has been expanded more than replaced.

The message is just "swamp!" now.

Every accusation from Republicans, without exception, is either a confession, a plan, or an unfulfilled wish.

Another point of irony: Elon was tasked with "draining" the swamp and the left immediately goes to burn Teslas.

For me, when someone promises to "drain the swamp", they reveal their ignorance and selfishness with their shallow anti-swamp ideology.

Swamps are rich ecosystems with incredible natural beauty and diversity. Draining a swamp is extraordinarily bad in general, even if good for wealthy property developers.

Ironically, it seems that "drain the swamp" turns out to be an apt metaphor for what Trump and that gang have been doing, as promised.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

The swamp has always been him and his buddies. Pure projection. Everything he spouts is always pure projection.

It’s not even ironic. Trump never genuinely intended to do so, and anybody with a brain never trusted them to do so either. Just another case of “every accusation an admission” in the case of the leaders, and “it’s only bad when it’s not our guy doing it” in the case of the followers.

>The effect lasted for around three months in animal experiments.

It would just be temporary, but there is likely trade offs.

Maybe add a "flag listing" button so users can alert you?

My daughter, in grade school, uses a Chromebook at school and access Google Classroom through Chrome. The school has very few restrictions on extensions and when I log into her account, Chrome is littered with extensions. They all innocuous (ex. change cursor into cat, pets play around on your screen etc). However, without fail, each time I log in and go to the extension page, Chrome notifies me that one or more of the extensions was removed due to malicious activity or whatever.

I don't think that your daughter might know if say any web cam might take photos and see what she's searching if the extensions are indeed malicious.

I'd either go ahead and talk to her and remove extensions altogether and ask her to have a stock/only open source extensions (yes opensource also has supply issues but its infinitely more managable than this) or the second option being to maybe create them yourself . I don't know about how chrome works (I use firefox) but one thing that you can do is if the thing is simple for your daughter, then just vibe code it and use tampermonkey (heck even open source it) and then audit the code written by it yourself if you want better security concerns.

Nowadays I really just end up creating my own extensions with tampermonkey before using any proprietory extension. With tampermonkey, the cycle actually feels really simple (click edit paste etc.) and even a single glance at code can show any security errors for basic stuff and its one of the few use cases of (AI?) in my opinion.

Looks like it will be an infrared camera, so perhaps that changes the requirement?

Doesn't that just make it worse? It can't see color, but instead it can potentially see through thin clothing

That law regulates captured images. It doesn't require continuous shutter sounds while the phone is processing and even displaying the camera input - only once an image is captured. It seems unlikely that the AirPods will allow users to capture IR images that are used for gestural control and environmental awareness for system functions.

The law doesn't make a distinction for what the AirPod's internal processing does. Infrared definitely violates people's privacy and dignity.

Is there a shutter sound when someone uses FaceID? That uses infrared to capture the users face.

Of course not

But that’s unrelated to the shutter sound law

I remember allAdvantage. I remember hitting like $20 or some low figure which was their base payout. For a 12 year old kid that would have been awesome. Lo and behold I got an email saying they had increased their minimum pay out to $50 and I never used it again.

I must have been early because I received a payout of a few € once.