This article is incorrect. The rule implemented a safe harbor for large card issuing companies that have to comply with rules regarding late fees. The safe harbor means issuers can charge $8 late fees and be sure they are in compliance.
Card issuers can still charge more than $8 for late fees. They just need to comply with existing regulation, specifically that whatever late fees they charge are “proportional” to their costs.
Don’t expect an $8 cap on late fees as a result of this.
Is oxygen flammable? I’m pretty well-educated and that question gave me pause. I know oxygen is involved in the combustion process, so I think the answer is yes, oxygen is flammable. That feels like a trick question though.
It is a tricky question, especially if you don't remember the precise definition of combustible/flammable. I believe only the fuel (the thing getting oxidized) in the reaction is considered combustible/flammable, not the oxidizing agent. So oxygen isn't flammable.
I imagine GGP would accept "what we call combustion is an exothermic (hence, fire is hot) redox reaction. Oxygen is a common oxidizing agent (hence, 'oxidation')" as an answer, and the point being made wasn't about the trivia around exact word usage.
Hedge fund manager here. Depositors and banks are counterparties, and every financial institution & fund I’ve ever encountered does significant and ongoing diligence on their multiple banking relationships.
It’s hard to imagine how irresponsible these VCs and startups were.
These 'startups' include small businesses like wineries and restaurants. They're not in finance and are not going to want to spend time becoming experts in banking due diligence.
If we insist that they take on their bank's solvency risk as depositors, the rational decision for most of them will simply to be move to a systemically important bank that the govt will likely never let fail (Citi, BofA..). There's no reason for them to keep their business at a small bank and take on risk they don't need to. Regional banks would then wither, and the banking industry would become even more concentrated with a few too-big-to-fail banks becoming even more powerful. It would be a bad outcome for everyone.
BTW, for anyone wondering which banks are considered to be 'systemically important', here's a convenient link to the list:
It's obviously different if you work in finance and you're dealing with hedge-fund-sized quantities of money. Making money off risk is your core competence.
For the vast, vast majority of startups that's not their business. Storing a few million dollars should not require expert due diligence into a bank's holdings when you're in a developed country, due diligence that these business owners don't even know how to do. It's not irresponsibility, it's focusing on the things a small business should focus on rather than distractions.
These are more like “prime brokers” rather than “counterparties” in trade.
How often do you assume that your prime broker will go out of business before your hedge fund does? Unless you’re a big one (Citadel, Millenium), probably “never” (it’s the same with startup companies).
The question is if any of them want a drink. Ie if at least one of them wants a drink.
If the first person wants a drink then they know at least one person wants a drink and so could answer "yes". If they don't personally want a drink they don't know if either of the other 2 might want a drink so they would reply "I don't know"
Correct. The original phrasing is a question of universality, the new phrasing is one of existence. Gpt4 continued to explain the joke in terms of the former when it should have been able to adjust for the latter. It has never heard the latter, but it sounded close enough.
On the upside, this makes for a good way to test the logical abilities of a LLM. On the downside, whatever part was considered a "joke" before has been completely obliterated.
> The second logician hears the first one's answer and concludes that the first logician must want a drink, because if he didn't, he would have said "no"
> The third logician hears both answers and realizes that since neither of the first two said "no," they both must want a drink.
IOW, when asked the puzzle with "anyone", it repeated the explanation for "all", which seems to support the hypothesis that even GPT-4 is still just a "stochastic parrot" repeating what it sees and unable to reason about slight variations.
Humor is only coincidentally about being correct, since we all know horses have fore-hooves and two rear hooves, leading to the funny fact that horses have six hooves.
It’s because someone could short (borrow) GBTC and redeem it for BTC for an immediate profit. The premium would disappear near instantaneously as short sellers captured the spread.
Why would you redeem it for BTC instead of selling it on the stock market? If you sell it on the market you get 10%-50% more than if you redeem it then sell the bitcoins.
Also, I don't see how shorting gives you immediate profit. You still have to give back the stock later (you're in debt). If the stock goes up, you lose. If the stock goes down, you gain. I don't see how it's immediate profit.
GBTC is a form of "locked bitcoin," and it currently trades at a discount to the equivalent amount of ordinary bitcoin. If redemption were possible, the profitable arbitrage trade would be:
1. Use cash to buy Y GBTC at $X
2. Redeem those GBTC for Y bitcoin.
3. Sell those bitcoin for $Z > $X
Short selling isn't necessary, but it would sidestep the "use cash" part of step 1.
This trade is not currently possible because GBTC does not allow people to trade in GBTC shares for the equivalent bitcoin.
I see your point, but really it's "losing $30M of someone else's money" that OP is probably highlighting. On the other hand, not a lot of people let you gamble with $30M when you're that young. Just two opposite perspectives
Founding a company at 19 that hits some big milestones, and comes close to success despite ultimately failing, is still very impressive to me. Nobody bats 100, especially at the age of 19.
Also, from the outside, he seems to have been an impactful/successful leader at YC and now OpenAI. People who know him personally seem to thing he’s an extremely bright and driven person, and his results at YC and OpenAI indicate they’re probably on to something.
Card issuers can still charge more than $8 for late fees. They just need to comply with existing regulation, specifically that whatever late fees they charge are “proportional” to their costs.
Don’t expect an $8 cap on late fees as a result of this.