> using computers they were supposed to be recycling, they downloaded and sold porn in return for snacks, built a hacker toolkit with Kali Linux and password crackers, and created fake passes to move freely around the facility.
> "80 percent of Gen Z say that they want a romantic relationship, but 55 percent say they’re not ready...We’ve screwed up a whole generation with this idea you need to overly self actualize before you can be in a relationship."
I've found that the core issue is that they don't accept or love themselves. If you can't accept yourself in spite of your imperfections, it becomes nearly impossible to love/care about someone else for reasons beyond the superficial; how they look, where they sit on the social ladder, etc.
So you end up with a whole bunch of people focused on chasing status to feel worthy of having a partner who already has that status.
While not accepting flaws (serious ones) is a good thing, the problem is that people poisoned by social media do not accept non-maxed-out people. Even aspiration and effort to improve is not enough, one has to be already in the perfect state.
Though maybe you have meant that, that even small imperfections are not acceptable anymore.
I wonder how much of this is due to the likes of Instagram, where everybody presents a throughout curated, filtered version of themselves, setting unrealistic expectations as a baseline everywhere.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems like if they booked a transaction based on a basket of goods, and then seconds later changed that basket of goods, seems like in the physical world that would be fraud
The physical world is within regulated frameworks though. There is no regulatory body in charge of the Ethereum blockchain.
The prosecution is alleging that there was a "promise" to the victim, which would let the transaction breach the boundaries of the crypto universe and be classified as real world fraud between two individual parties, but I just don't see how there was any sort of "promise" made here. First of all, they traded against an automated trading bot. Second, a bid or ask and market liquidity is not a "promise". I trade for a living and market makers suddenly pull liquidity all the time when it suits them, on millisecond time-frames. Granted, what the brothers did is essentially "spoofing" or posting bids and asks with the intent to move markets, so the question here to me boils down to is crypto spoofing illegal or not. Perhaps that depends on the jurisdiction/and or decentralized nature of the exchange that they were posting the offers on. I would think that if they can get charged for this then the majority of trading on thousands of "shitcoins" is outright illegal activity by extension though.
On a much more simplistic level, if you're coding up in ethereum arbitrage bot, and it makes a bad high frequency arb trade... tough luck? I was under the impression that this was sort of the point of crypto markets, to escape regulations and be a freeform, decentralized trading venue.
An automated trading bot is just some person/company's agent. It can still be a victim of a fraud.
I think spoofing should quite obviously be illegal. It's basically contract fraud.
> I was under the impression that this was sort of the point of crypto markets, to escape regulations and be a freeform, decentralized trading venue.
"Escaping regulations" is some libertarian fever dream. There is no such thing as "the law doesn't apply to you" if you make the right people angry enough.
>>"Escaping regulations" is some libertarian fever dream
The same for "Free Markets".
People scream about "Free Markets" and use that standard as a cudgel to complain about any regulation they do not like.
The fact of the matter is that free markets do not exist, or if they do, they are a very transitory anomaly, the exception that proves the rule. Every market has (varying) expectations of trust and honesty on each side, and sets of constraints on what is and is not a legitimate transaction or even objects (real or virtual) for transaction.
The only question is who is regulating the markets, and to what degree and with what intent they are regulating them.
Obviously, regulations can be too heavy or too light to sustain the market, and will need adjustment. In practice, regulations are almost always too heavy or light (especially from the POV of particular parties) and in need of frequent adjustment.
But the idea of "escaping regulations" and having an absolutely "Free Market" is a false idol and actively damaging in the real world, where the debate should be how much and what regulations are appropriate, not a stupid "all regulation is bad" cudgel.
To me it sounds like they acted on the sale before it was finished.
Imagine you see Taylor Swift tickets for sale, so you start buying them. Meanwhile, you also start booking a hotel room. The Taylor Swift purchase fails because they are sold out by the time you try to finish your purchase - but at that point the hotel room booking has already succeeded! Should you be able to blame either Ms. Swift or the hotel for having to pay a cancellation fee on the now-worthless room?
From an automated trading perspective it makes sense to execute both orders at once as it minimizes the amount of time you have to hold onto it (during which your potential gain can evaporate or even turn into a loss), but it does expose you to the risk of cancellation. To me that sounds like the cost of doing business?
It's an interesting legal question what will be decided for this case, but it's also satisfying that the underlying bug can be fixed. That seems quite different from a traditional fraud, which can be done over and over again, and needs to be prosecuted every time.
And the defence of "there was no communication between the two brothers and the traders" feels really weak as well. Of course there was a communication, they put a trade offer online, and it was accepted by a trader, albeit automatically.
The search terms for how to evade fraud is also not going to help them.
I wonder if their lawyer advised them not to take the plea deal, it doesn't sound like they have a high chance of getting away with it.
> The search terms for how to evade fraud is also not going to help them.
If you're trying to do large-scale taxes, that's just called a "ruling": not sure if the sketchy-looking loophole you found is legal? Ask the tax man for legally-binding advice!
yep I've used Devon and now Google Jules, for the big stuff, it has lots of wrong code, but it still end up giving my a much better start than starting from scratch certainly. When it all comes together it give me a 6X boost. But def fixing all the wrong code and thoroughly testing it is the time consuming part.
> He said that the company is no longer repairing exoskeletons older than five years because the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the devices, has approved their usage for that timespan.
They decided not to have kids
A tragedy
Edit: it was 600 a month, not a week