Daytrading for a single account and managing a multi-billion dollar fund are completely different strategies and need completely different skillsets. You should educate yourself before talking authoritatively on subjects you don't know very much about.

It's very very hard, and not everyone can do it. I tried and lost a lot of money. But it's definitely not impossible, that is simply a lie.

Giving first line, poorly trained support people access to people's PII and the ability to change passwords is something that needs to be stopped. Social engineers are completely exploiting poorly trained, minimum wage workers for huge gains.

We need to have some sort of ISO certification so that front line support people must hand over any security information to highly trained second-tier staff. If EVERY company used the same subset of information to verify, under the guidance of well-trained staff with a consistent methodology across all companies, and didn't expose various bits and pieces of info (some use last for of SSN, some use credit card info, address, date of birth, etc) then it would extremely hard for social engineers to do hacks like this.

A preliminary injunction is considered very strong. So it's not that "nothing is final here", it's actually almost pretty much final unless something comes out of left field.

What is the attrition rate for the manager and for the company in general. If a manager has high attrition rate, that's definitely a red flag.

And in this specific case, it sounds like the MIT director attempted to conceal donations from someone he knew was banned, so his resignation is just.

What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?

But what about people who feel otherwise and think that by serving out his sentence he has paid for their sins? If those people associate with criminals who have served their sentence, are those people worse in your eyes? It seems like not only is redemption for criminals no longer allowed, but you're not allowed to believe in redemption for others as well.

But if you don't impose a life sentence, but then believe a person should continue to pay for their crimes after the amount determined by a court of law, isn't that hypocrisy? Having someone serve their sentence in jail but then making them never able to interact in society again because of outrage over their crime is fundamentally unfair. If you're going to do that, then just execute them or throw them in jail forever, because that's effectively what they're doing. And as I said, I'm perfectly okay with making execution for crimes the punishment for a large swathe of crimes, including everything that Epstein did.

And even worse, if someone believes that a person deserves the right to be forgiven for their sins, and they are thrown into the same bucket for even associating with them, is that even fair?

Apparently Bill Gates met with Epstein several times after his conviction. Should he be punished as well?

He was convicted of a crime, and he served his time. In hindsight, the sentence was too light, but as regular people are we really supposed to understand all the details? If I met someone who went to jail, should she be exiled forever after serving her sentence? I just don't understand. And people get lenient sentences all the time, am I as a non-lawyer supposed to understand this and then give my own sentence on top of that? Or should some people who commit crimes should never, ever be allowed to interact with other humans again?

As far as I can tell, from the perspective of those around him in 2014, Epstein was convicted of a crime, and served his time. By 2014, he had committed no further crimes from what people knew at the time, so why exactly is this an outrage. Obviously in 2019, we know that he committed further crimes and he rightly went to jail, and it's sad that he won't face justice. But in 2014, did anyone know this and should they be treated so harshly if they didn't?

The only real problem was covering up the donation, which Ito definitely should have been fired for, but I don't understand why Epstein at that time should have been considered a persona non grata.

The biggest question is: should criminals never ever be forgiven for their crimes? And should anyone who decides to forgive them and associate with them also be considered despicable as well? Or is it just some criminals depending on their crime? Who judges which crimes should never be forgiven and which should?

The probability of your phone number not being uploaded to Facebook is basically 0.