A future is a contract to deliver a good at a time at a price. That's ordinary business. All of the scaffolding around futures contacts is at core built around buying and selling actual stuff. A pork future is an agreement to buy actual pork.
The event contract isn't tied to the delivery of a good or service.
I asked about option contracts not futures contracts. As to futures contracts there are many that are not associated with anything physical (e.g. stock indexes, bitcoin, US treasuries, etc.).
Another reading is this: CEOs don't quit without notice [1], it's bad form and bad for both the company and for the reputation of the person leaving. Regardless of the value he as an individual was providing it speaks to substantial disfunction in the overall leadership of the company and a major lack of confidence from the person who presumably had the best idea of how the company was doing on the whole. The market suddenly learning those things resulted in a substantial market correction. It doesn't really matter whether he was a particularly good or bad CEO; the situation would indicate something is majorly wrong in either case.
1: Obviously exceptions will exist for unexpected major life events, etc.
I mean the fancy thing about living in a liberal democracy is that they do get to decide this in a limited sense. They get to have an opinion, advocate for it, and if they can convince people through the political process they do get to determine the outcome!
To actually advocate for their position: the US housing market isn't the consequence of natural market forces; it is the consequence of government intervention in the market to force a specific outcome. Housing prices have been rising as a percentage of average income for a long time. That cannot continue forever, so it won't, there will be a breaking point eventually (arguably we're just about at that point which is why it's become a political hot topic). We can choose policies to gracefully reduce prices over time or we can just let prices climb and the housing situation become ever more acute as it becomes increasingly difficult to people to own homes.
Housing prices going down will undoubtedly disadvantage people who made homes their primary investment vehicle. Though those people also just an investment path was dependent on the government creating artificial scarcity combined with interference in the loan market to keep the ship afloat. It will undoubtedly hurt. But it also hurts right now for individuals who did not choose the current set of regulations and suffer under the fruit such regulations have born (sky high prices, a lack of starter homes, etc.) The current housing situation is one without easy answers. It is a crises of our own making, but now that we're in it we will have to rip off the band-aid or just let the wound fester till it's something even worse.
It isn't due to the Play Integrity API. That shows a notification on GrapheneOS with a toggle for blocking it to work around it for services not enforcing providing a result. If that was the issue, the original poster would have known from the notification. The issue ended up being PayPal shipping incorrect anti-tampering code incompatible with secure spawning. The original poster figured that out and got it working by disabling the per-app secure spawning toggle.
I know that Discover has a card with a 5% discount category that changes once a quarter. Everything not in the category gets 1%. It's not hard to get the card (or at least wasn't) and was frequently advertised to college students.
If you combine that with a card that gives 2% on everything than it wouldn't be hard to average over 2% cashback as long as you were mindful about using the discover card for qualifying purchases and the 2% card for everything else.
There is one other rub - because I use my bank's card I get better interest rates. How does a .25-.5 % on my various loans and checking account compare to 2% on groceries - this is a complex question that it not easy to answer.
That's not really the point of the saying though. The point is more so that if you are the kind of person who is in a position to roll your own crypto you probably have a PhD and have worked with cryptography for years. And the thing that you're setting out to do is to produce a cryptography library.
If you're that kind of person, then sure go for it! But if you're a top person in the field of cryptography you didn't need anyone to tell you if you were fit to make a cryptography library anyway.
And if you're not that kind of person you do need someone to tell you because the whole field is a minefield where subtle oversights break the whole thing. If you want to just implement cryptography as a fun learning experience that's great. But actual implementations that people will actually depend on need to be handled by experts.
I don’t get it. AI can apparently do anything, build entire massive applications in a day… except roll crypto, which has tons of papers, books and prior art to train on.
I think it's worth pointing out that the US almost certainly could have taken control of the strait. But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc.
You can't win a war purely through air superiority and bombs. That's not a new lesson but it's one the administration failed to learn through history and is apparently now failing to learn through practice).
> You can't win a war purely through air superiority and bombs. That's not a new lesson but it's one the administration failed to learn through history and is apparently now failing to learn through practice.
This is a lesson that conservative administrations have refused to learn for decades. I hope Curtis Lemay is experiencing a toasty afterlife for all of the suffering he has caused humanity due to a zealous conviction that aerial bombing campaigns win wars, and his lasting legacy in conservative war strategy.
The delusion is somewhat over a century old now. It originates from factions within the military community (vs. politicians) and there's nothing particularly conservative about it -
I'd personally label the factions within the military that view aerial bombing as an effective strategy as "conservative", especially the ones that follow in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger and Curtis LeMay. It's hard not to see the direct line to Pete Hegseth's leadership, as well.
Notably, one of the largest "Liberal hawks", LBJ, often disagreed head on with Curtis LeMay because LeMay was too insane in his villainous disregard for human life. LeMay's dehumanization of the citizens of foreign nations was on par with Nazism, imo.
I'll give you that Obama and Biden are a black mark on leftwing politics in terms of aerial bombing as they continued the status quo instead of enacting positive change. But the both-sidesism is a bit too much here.
> I'd personally label the factions within the military that view aerial bombing as an effective strategy as "conservative"...
If "aerial bombing as an effective strategy" still means "you can win wars just by dropping enough bombs", I'll disagree. Because that use of "conservative" (simplistic maximum macho force) is equally applicable to Army leaders who want to occupy every square inch of the enemy's territory, or to Navy leaders who want to sink everything associated with the enemy and establish a water-tight blockade.
There's nothing liberal about a political leader reining in a nut case like LeMay. George Wallace quickly regretted his selection of LeMay as his '68 running mate. Or look at America's military actions during President Reagan's terms - for all the big talk and military build-ups, actual military actions were very carefully limited.
But in a very different sense of the word "Conservative", aerial bombing is often extremely Conservative. That sense is minimizing political commitment to a conflict. A leader (with effective air superiority) can drop some bombs or launch some missiles, talk tough about having "delivered a message" - then quietly drop the whole thing, having risked fairly little, and without giving the impression of having failed or retreated. From the PoV of a political leader managing risks, putting boots on the ground would be far less conservative.
> But it would have required boats in the water and boots on the ground. But that puts many more lives at risk, would have been very unpopular (much moreso then the current war situation), etc.
Boats in the water and boots on the ground can be popular. But it needs a credible story, told by credible sources.
I don't follow. If you mean against fraudulent spending phone based tap to pay is probably the most secure. It demands user authentication (biometric or code) for any transaction so there's no real way to trigger a fraudulent spend without the user knowing. Pretty much any other system allows for at least some amount of unauthorized spending if it's stolen.
If you just mean it's less private than I don't really know that it's terribly different than using a card. Especially if the ecosystem were open and you could choose your payment provider and not just have to use Google/apple.
if I’m reading the source I found correctly, that has got nothing to do with Tap and Pay, where a virtual card is stored/emulated on device via the secure element, instead emulating an Contactless reader and relaying a real card pressed up against the device.
If anything, this attack is a benefit of mobile payments, where you need a second device to perform the attack with, and the user to use verify themselves for the payment to go through.
The event contract isn't tied to the delivery of a good or service.
reply