Jump to content

washparkhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    9926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by washparkhorn

  1. The volatility is certainly a problem. I assume the volatility is due to the ongoing price discovery. Fed/Treas/FDIC regulation is key to crypto's next step at this crux. Sounds like liquidity requirements, at a minimum, are on the horizon. This type of regulation actually helps crypto grow in value. The market is changing (and is demanding more accountability from crypto). https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-crypto-regulation-pulled-off-the-rebranding-of-the-century-2021-10-26 After the 2018 ICO boom in all of its fraud-rich glory, the phrase “Wild West” was thrown around hundreds of articles about cryptocurrencies. It’s a catchy metaphor crypto opponents leverage to play up the lawlessness angle, painting a picture of bandits waiting behind every corner and not a single sheriff in sight. Fans interpret the phrase differently, dreaming of a new frontier where modern pioneers can build the infrastructure of the future. But the market has changed quite a bit since 2018. As more and more institutional money floods into the crypto ecosystem, the big players are getting their skin and cash in the game. And money has a tendency to change people’s minds. For a crypto sector that has grown into an entire industry, regulation and compliance have evolved from boogeyman to key selling point. The reason for that is quite simple: The first question a crypto company hears when approaching a prospective partner among major financial institutions is about its AML. The first hurdle the relationship hits is always in the institution’s Risk and Compliance department. So now, suddenly, every crypto startup claims (and I am not commenting on whether it’s true or not) to be regulation-ready, AML compliant, and a good citizen seeking to play by the book. They better be, given the amount of scrutiny they are or will be in for from both the regulators and prospective partners, even before the first meetings—even their Twitter feeds and Facebook posts may be studied under a microscope. The best thing they can do is make sure they can quickly present solid evidence proving their business processes and practices are indeed thorough and legitimate. TLDR: The wild west days are over, which bolsters the value of crypto. That may piss off those who traffic in weapons, narcotics, blackmail, humans, . . ., but fuck 'em. This isn't 2018 anymore. Success will come from regulation, ironically.
  2. The roster is a who's who of snowflakes with bad takes. It's the Isle of misfit snowflakes. They insist on people paying attention to their nonsense.
  3. The very best. Some of us honkies have an irritating nasal quality to their voice that produces a gooseish honk when they speak. There are cures . . . Simplest is to project your voice to the back of your teeth, rather than directing the flow out your cavernous nasal cavities (voice placement). A lot of the work to correct a nasal voice involves releasing tongue tension. There is a "technique" that helps women, especially, with tongue-tension release.
  4. We Scots rule the world. When you mix that with gypsy, well . . . you are gonna have problems.
  5. Sometimes the objections that come out of left field are difficult to anticipate. In well-run courtrooms, these evidentiary issues are cleaned-up, prior to trial. But you are correct, good attorneys anticipate all possible attacks on the use of an exhibit and prepare accordingly. Rinse and repeat for all potential exhibits. I don't get the sense this prosecutor spent the requisite time on exhibits/evidentiary issues.
  6. I blame the mormons for that design trend. Here is Mormon "La Quinta Inn" styling:
  7. Haters gonna hate. Skaters gonna skate.
  8. we grow or die. I am a permabull. The alternative is unthinkable.
  9. beautiful. The objection to leading a witness on cross is the chef's kiss.
  10. Guys who abuse their testosterone gel are gonna get it banned.
  11. I bet he had one of these at one time or another . . .
  12. That is the law in Wisconsin and it is a question for the jury: The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. The Wisconsin laws on self-defense, first aggressor, and defense of property (so we are on the same page): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48 (public access).
  13. Crypto is the gateway drug to communism through UBI?
  14. The cops actions aiding and abetting his trek to the violence was certainly sus.
  15. An initial aggressor loses the right to claim self-defense.
  16. The prosecution did a horrible job preparing for potential evidentiary objections, even one out of left field like this one. And this is a courtroom-must for you aspiring courtroom lawyers (barristers) or if you are an associate helping to prepare a partner for trial. https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/imwinkelried/
  17. I think the emotion is getting to you, which is natural and human. I have zero respect and patience for a dishonest prosecutor. The State has heavy weaponry in criminal cases. But - ponder the evidentiary problems that arise when when working with digital images that all require an algo to render an image. This judge is about 20 years behind in tech. A good primer for those interested in the subject. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2000/berg.htm Like I said, I have no problem going back to Elmos and transparencies, but there is fuckery with that as well. And just so we are clear, the problem of deep-fakes is something every conscientious courtroom lawyer should be aware of and on guard against. They are becoming a significant issue.
  18. Cite? What controls in a claim of self-defense is whether the killer reasonably perceived that he was being threatened with an unlawful imminent deadly force attack. One doesn't need to be correct in that perception; one merely needs to be reasonable in that perception. The issue in this case is whether the killer was the initial aggressor, which, if proven, would prevent the use self-defense by the shooter.
  19. In 25+ years of litigating, that's not the way it works. As for the Judge's "algo" fear - when creating images from raw data, an algorithm is used to create the "original" photo representation. If algorithms are the judge's issue, no digital photos could be admitted under his reasoning.
×
×
  • Create New...