eisfeld

You do realise that the First Amendment has nothing to do with how private companies run their platforms right? It protects the people against the government. Elon buying SVB? Hahaha. He ran Twitter into considerable financial troubles, their revenue is way way down as advertisers were leaving the platform because of Elons shenanigans. The banks and co-investors he brought on board are seriously regretting the decision and tried to sell some of their assets with steep discounts. Also he did not fire 90% of workers.

Yes of course a lot of VC companies were part of the early run. Silicon Valley Bank was one of the most popular and biggest banks amongst startups. They specifically catered to that market. For example SVB was the default bank you got when incorporating via Stripe Atlas in the past. Word spreads fast among VCs, it's a relatively small community that is always reacting fast and so they will tell their companies to withdraw the funds as soon as they heard things are starting to crumble because the last ones will be holding the bag. Their motives are very clear: protect their investments.

I don't think it's OK for a bank with $45B in AUM to collapse either. Actually having such a cut-off just creates an incentive to centralize banking because having funds in smaller banks would be riskier since they don't need to go through the same checks. Banking is such an essential infrastructure for the ecnomomy that the different parts should be strictly shielded from each other. Deposits should not be taken by the bank and invested in high risk, long term vehicles IMHO. Deposits and transfers must be completely separate from investments and loans. Actually banks have to put disclaimers like the following onto certain pages: But how is it ok that banks take deposits into accounts, turn around and invest that money? And on top the depositors are many times not aware what the bank is putting their funds into or that they do that at all. It should simply not be possible for depositors to lose any of their funds no matter what happens. Everything else is trying to fix individual holes in a sieve. It's too complex and there are too many workarounds.

According to the order by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation, SVB was seeing so many outflows ($42B on Thursday) that they ended up with a nearly $1B negative cash balance. They were insolvent already and any delay would have made the situation worse as SVB is forced to sell assets at steep discounts and incurring heavy losses. I don't think their chinese joint venture had anything to do with it. https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/2023/03/DFPI-Orders-Silicon-Valley-Bank-03102023.pdf?emrc=bedc09 I think banking regulations are way too lax. Anyone with a bit of background in finance can see how the risk that SVB was taking on was way too high. They essentially bet a huge part of their assets on 1. interest rates not increasing too much in the next decade 2. not many people actually withdrawing too much or further growth in deposits. Yes a few people saw this coming and profited handsomely. It's baffling to me that SVB didn't sell their long term bonds with minimal losses when it became clear that the Fed had to hike rates. Completely sleeping at the wheel.

I'd hope it's the other way round ???? A bit of context: SVB got triple digit billion dollar deposits in the past years during which there were near zero interest rates. That's not small money. They then bought 10 year treasury bills and similar termed mortgage backed securities with that money. Now, the money is not gone. It's just that it's locked for many years and if too many people start to withdraw money... boom. SVB could sell those assets but they'd have to incur a loss since interest rates are up and no-one will buy these low interest assets when they can get much higher interest ones unless they get a good discount. What is intersting is that the FDIC took over SVB in the middle of a business day. They usually don't do that and wait until Friday after hours. They also usually try to broker a deal with a bigger bank to swallow the troubled one while the FDIC will take over some of the losses. This is a really messy situation. Thousands of small and medium sized businesses had their money in SVB. This alone is a big issue but it raises fear that other, potentially bigger, banks face similar issues.

Try the Toyota dealer at the end of Bypass Road, when I was looking at a Carmy they did offer test drives. Not sure if it's actually a different owner, maybe just give the other dealers a call because they might not be available on the spot.

2. Uhm yes, not sure why you mentioned that. 3. Aha, not sure why the DLT would do that or why you mentioned the government being behind in supplying white plates then.

Of course you can, that's why the red plates exist in the first place. You can even buy a car and never ever register it, you just wont be allowed to drive it on the roads eventually. Ah so probably an exceptional situation where the DLT can't source the while plates and that's why the DLT issued you a letter. Doubt you can get that just because for example the dealer messed up the paperwork.

Wasn't aware that this is a possibility, interesting. Sounds a bit strange though since that removes the incentive to actually register the car even more. What's the downside? I went my route because it actually incentivized the dealer to get their act together and register the car.

I got fined driving my red plate car into another province. I made the dealer pay the fine since they messed up the registration. It does happen but rarely.

Doesn't even have to be another race, just foreign.

Translated it means something like half-kid so no it's not specific to being half white, just half foreign.

Forgive me if I politely doubt that one. Good luck even getting traction. For context: the steepest roads in the world have around 20 degree incline.

Yes. Motorbikes are not special in terms of inheritance. And if you bought it during marriage then it's probably considered marital property anyways. No need to do anything. After your death your wife can transfer the green book into her name with the proper documentation.

Legality is really not a tricky question, it's quite clear. What many people confuse in Thailand is legal situation versus enforcement. In many areas police might not care at all. Same like they don't care in some places if people are wearing helmets on regular motorbikes or if they even have number plates. Heck even in many places in BKK police don't care if people drive the wrong way on the road. Doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to do so. So, there is the question of legality and the question of "will I get in trouble". And the latter one is the tricky one because it varies on location without clear boundaries and changes over time.

It's not that easy. You can have a motor A with less torque but more power than motor B and motor A making it up the hill but motor B not. Where torque matters most is getting up the hill from a stand still. As soon as the motor can rev sufficiently, power becomes more important. The good thing about electric motor is they produce max torque at zero RPM and wont stall.

As mentioned by other posters, having pedals or not doesn't mean anything when it comes to the law. It got two wheels and a motor? It's a motorbike. No matter also how it looks like (e.g. like a bicycle). This is specified at the beginning of the Vehicle Act which is a pinned topic of the motorcycle subforum here. You can easily see how otherwise you'd end up with silly stuff like slapping pedals on a 1000cc race bike making it a bicycle exempt from all regulations. Of course that wouldn't make sense. Some people and sellers then claim there are excemptions for electricly propelled bikes under a certain amount of watt but when asked for an official source I've never seen any proper reply.

Yes, why not? Thai banks have no choice but to play by Visa/Mastercard rules.

I guess they didn't learn too much about nature then. More than 90% of all mammals do *not* practice opposite sex monogamy. So if they claim to make rules according with the laws of nature then please make it a law that the alpha male goes around and mates with all the females of the hole village while the other males have to compete in a deadly brawl for the privilege.

If a seller does not deliver the product you paid for with a card then the next step is to open a dispute with your bank so they can issue a chargeback. This will make the bank forcefully retake the money from Lazada and on top Lazada will get a chargeback fine from the card network. They *really* don't like these. Provide proof to the bank and they will side with you.

You are confusing several subsites of the NIH. What you linked to is a page on the National Library of Medicine, the PubMed service which just hosts and indexes papers. It does not evaluate or check anything. You can read their disclaimer here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disclaimer/ You can find all kinds of bogus studies on there. It's like Google for medical papers if you will. The page I linked to on the other hand is a review and guideline by NIH itself. Regarding the study you linked to: at the very top you may find "Erratum" and if you click through to see the full text you will find that the authors of the study for some reason have all chosen to hide their conflict of interests as working for an Ivermectin manufacturer as well as some anti-vax and pro-Ivermectin marketing groups. This is a no-go and does not happen by accident.

According to the NIH Pre-Exposure trials are ongoing. Post-Exposure Prophylaxis trials have shown it is ineffective. Personally I don't see how Ivermectin could help in a pre-exposure setting either but it's good they are doing trials. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/prevention-of-sars-cov-2/

Here a review of that meta study by a governmental body: https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rapid-review-of-Ivermectin-for-COVID-19_2-July-2021-ADDENDUM.pdf It was a low quality meta study. The "mederate-certainty evidence" should have raised a flag already.

And here is an article explaining why this site can be extremely misleading and not trustworthy https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/the-anonymous-meta-analysis-thats-convincing-people-to-use-ivermectin/ And another one https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-hasnt-proven-effective-covid-19-so-far-despite-persistent-online-claims/ I looked at a few studies, saw that a study (e.g. Ravikirti) itself said the results were statistically insignificant but that site included it in their stats anyways. The confidence intervals are off the charts. What's the point of aggregating a lot of bad studies and some of the entries seem to even state a completely different outcome on this website versus what the actual study says. They also include retracted studies! Plus they throw together studies with completely different methodologies. Looks to me like a clear bad faith effort as they knowingly still show this wrong and misleading data. No wonder the authors want to stay anonymous in comparison to writing an actual meta study and publishing a paper. Go figure.

Sure, don't think anyone is disputing that. They just have no use for preventing or treating Covid.