与「THE_LETTER」相关的搜索结果

Nvidia is the leading open source AI company by a wide margin. The silliness of this post is compounded by the fact that the letter did not suggest that closed source AI companies should open source their models.

Let’s see how Binance plays the regulatory arbitrage game again. We saw a similar playbook in the UK in 2022, when its efforts ultimately ran into resistance from the FCA. In my view, the challenge is not about obtaining a license in one jurisdiction or hiring thousands of compliance professionals. The real question is whether compliance is genuinely embedded in the organization’s culture and decision-making. A company can hire 15,000 compliance staff, but if compliance teams lack authority, have limited visibility into key activities, are removed when raising sanctions, AML, or market integrity concerns, or if the organization believes it can rely on political protection, regulatory arbitrage, and complex structures to stay ahead of scrutiny, compliance programs risk becoming paper exercises rather than effective controls. Real compliance effectiveness comes from governance, transparency, accountability, and a willingness to operate within both the letter and the spirit of regulation—not from headcount alone. Regulators are ultimately evaluating outcomes, not organizational charts.

Kim Jong Un decided to send Donald Trump a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still alive... Trump opened the letter which appeared to contain a single-line coded message: 370HSSV - 0773H Donald was baffled, so he emailed it to the his aides, who had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI No one could solve it at FBI, so it went to the CIA. With no clue as to its meaning, the CIA finally asked MSS (Ministry of State Security in China for help. Within a few seconds MSS cabled back with this reply: "Tell The President he's holding the message upside down." 🤣🤣

A man deposited a fake junk mail check for $95,000 as a joke. The bank cleared it. Six lawyers told him it was legally his money. He gave it all back anyway. – Patrick Combs was 29, living in San Francisco in 1995 with $200 in his bank account when a junk mail letter arrived offering him a get-rich-quick scheme. – Inside was a promotional fake check made out in his name for $95,093.35. Printed across the front in clear letters: NOT NEGOTIABLE. – In a moment of dark humor he signed the back with a smiley face and deposited it at an ATM. – He expected the bank to call him laughing. They never called. – Ten days later he checked his balance. $101,217.34. The check had cleared. – The promotional check was so close in design to a real check that it legally qualified as one under banking law. – By the time the bank realized what had happened it was legally too late to recall the funds. – Combs called his brother who told him to move the money immediately. – He tried to withdraw $95,000 in cash. He learned three things. All the large safe deposit boxes were taken, $500 bills no longer existed, and $95,000 in $100 bills did not fit in a small box. – He got a cashier's check instead and locked it in a safe-deposit box. – When the bank finally came for the money a month later they accused him of fraud and threatened police. – He refused to return anything until they admitted in writing that they had made the mistake, not him. – Six different lawyers reviewed his case and told him the money was legally his to keep. – The bank and Combs went to war for five months. He gave interviews on television and in newspapers. The public loved him. – He eventually gave every dollar back. All he wanted in return was a signed letter clearing him of any wrongdoing and lunch with the bank president. He got the letter but not the lunch. – He turned the entire story into a one-man show called Man 1 Bank 0 and performed it 2,000 times across the world. A man deposited a fake check as a joke with a smiley face signature. The tenth-largest bank in America cleared it.

A new Stop Killing Games open letter has been published ahead of the European Commission’s expected response to the initiative. The letter argues that the debate has become sidetracked by claims about the campaign that do not reflect what it actually proposes: -Stop Killing Games is not asking publishers to keep servers online forever. -It is not demanding that companies release source code. -It is not requiring every game to support private servers. Instead, the initiative calls for publishers to ensure that games people have paid for are not simply unusable when official support ends, and that reasonable end-of-life plans are put in place. The letter also points to California, where lawmakers are already debating possible solutions through proposed legislation. It argues that Europe has spent more time discussing the issue, yet is still debating misunderstandings that supporters say have already been addressed. The letter’s main message is simple: >The problem has been identified. >The proposal has been explained. >It is time to focus on solutions. The European Commission is expected to announce its next steps on 16 June.

As President, I would read 10 letters a day sent to me by ordinary Americans. At the Obama Presidential Center, we’ll have some of the letters I read — and responded to — every night. I still get emotional reading them, and it’s one of my favorite exhibits.

A 27-year-old unemployed Japanese man has been arrested by Kyoto police after sending threatening letters to Nintendo headquarters in which he claimed to have planted multiple bombs. The letters included direct threats such as “I’m going to blow you all up” and “My plans cannot be thwarted.” Nintendo reported the threats on March 16, prompting a police search that found no explosives or suspicious items.

Stop Killing Games has joined a big coalition pushing back against new age verification laws that claim to be for our safety. Big companies can afford the costly ID checks and rules, while small teams, fan fixes for private game servers, and community projects usually cannot. These are exactly what keep old games alive after the makers stop supporting them. One example is the free browser game Urban Dead, which ran for nearly 20 years until its solo developer shut it down in 2025 because UK rules made it too hard to continue. Stop Killing Games signed an open letter with groups like Mozilla and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The letter says that while protecting kids online matters, these wide age checks create new gatekeepers, collect private data, and shrink the open web. Some of that the rules could make private servers and even some Linux systems illegal in places like California. Games we own should stay playable

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry. The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine. The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true. The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either. The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought. The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to. The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus. He is confident. He has always been confident. The confidence has never been the problem. The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.