Axios claims that the $20B in cash will be paid out proportionally, so Trump Jr. will have his September investment tripled. The article looks AI assisted but claims "according to sources":
While an earlier poster is over stating Ostrom’s Nobel prize winning work — it is regularly shown that averting the tragedy of the commons is not as insurmountable as the original coining of the phrase implied.
Many of the fly by night digital proscribes just jack the dosage to show rapid gains. Coupled with people lying on BMI to get a script is a bad combination and why it’s so obvious.
Likely because (very?) few would associate LLMs in their current form with "digital slaves". Attributing personhood to a non-corporeal entity is likely a multi-generational change, if it ever happens.
This feels like getting taught in school not to cite Wikipedia when the actual digital literacy challenge is deeper— learn where the info comes from and to critically think.
Well you shouldn't cite Wikipedia in your paper for the same reason you shouldn't cite LLMs, they're tertiary sources. You shouldn't cite a paper book encyclopedia either. It has nothing to do with digital literacy so I'm sorry if that's what was taught to you.
You should look to an encyclopedia for information about all manner of topics. Someone did the work of organizing, verifying, and cross-referencing the information from disparate sources for you. It doesn't mean the information is untrustworthy, if that were true the paper you wrote in class would be untrustworthy which is absurd, no?
Exactly! It’s the credibility of the data once cross referenced with other sources that really matters. It could be a paper on arxiv or it could be a 4chan post, what matters is if it checks out.
The Texas Stock Exchange launches next year and I predict we will see a lot of tech try to move to launch there given txse claim to have lower compliance and less esg needs.
The TXSE was launched by an energy magnate [1] and "is financed by institutional investors including Charles Schwab, Fortress, BlackRock, and Citadel Securities" [2]. It's a direct response to the NASDAQ and NYSE putting their feet down on carbon emissions.
Nothing about its structure requires a company be incorporated in Texas much less based there [3]--those restrictions would go against the reason it was founded.
I doubt it. The state where a company is incorporated or has its headquarters located doesn't impact where it can list shares. There are several foreign companies with no significant US operations which are listed on US stock markets just to gain access to capital.
You know that Nasdaq isn't in Silicon Valley right? Lots of companies are based in the valley, listed in either CA or Delaware and go on to list in NYC now. There's no compelling reason for them to move to Texas.
As for the compliance thing it remains to be seen, but generally companies in low-compliance jurisdictions trade at a "fraud discount" to compensate investors for the likelihood of untoward shenanigans that would be prevented by that compliance.
Stock exchange aside, being able to build buildings without getting held of years or even decades for an endangered tree frog, and also employees being able to afford housing are kind of important to companies. Texas has its downsides, for sure, but it would be silly to pretend there aren't other reasons for companies to move there that have nothing to do with the new stock exchange.
downvoted -- this is a low quality comment, and worse, it's uninformed. Texas may be lower reg than NASDAQ at launch, and it may compete for business that way, and consumers may or may not like this and may or may not benefit from it.
However, post Sarbox US is vastly more regulated than the markets that "built" Silicon Valley, and there are many costs to corporations, founders and employees of that heavier regulation -- including a radically less friendly public capital market for companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
