与「i_Ris」相关的搜索结果

@ogata_risa_ @kotoba_ogata795 @iRis_y_saki @iris_official_ 【失敗から学ぶラジオ 七転八起】 #i_Ris# #山北早紀# が届け🔈 今週（5月24日）は コメントゲスト #小片リサ# さんが登場✨ 小片さんのポッドキャスト番組 「#ことばむすび795」もチェック✅# @ogata_risa_ @kotoba_ogata795 @iRis_y_saki @iris_official_ #ななはち795#

【失敗から学ぶラジオ 七転八起】 #i_Ris# #山北早紀# が届け🔈 来週（5月24日）は コメントゲスト #小片リサ# さんが登場✨ 小片さんのポッドキャスト番組 「ことばむすび」もチェック✅ @ogata_risa_ @kotoba_ogata795 @iRis_y_saki @iris_official_ #ななはち795#

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

Tunnels paired with robotaxis are the scalable fix for urban congestion. Point-to-point autonomous travel underground can be cheaper than buses or subways, operate reliably in any weather, and reduce crowding risks that matter for public health. Multi-level 3D networks turn a 2D street problem into efficient vertical infrastructure. Source I Elon Musk

Now with that said don't expect to make money playing. It's highly risky. I deposited a small amount. Played like a maniac for a bit won some FP and burned it to stake. I'm still down despite earnings from the staking. The flywheel can be a viral bootstrap to truly disrupt poker.

Elon Musk on why humanity must become multiplanetary: “I think it's important for the long-term preservation and ultimately the expansion and extension of the scope and scale of consciousness... that we must become a multi-planet species Because there are all these risks that we can't control existential risks. There's asteroids, super volcanoes, we could have a World War III... History does not suggest that civilization lasts forever” Elon is optimistic about the future, but he is also realistic Civilization has survived so far but history shows that catastrophic events eventually happen. The only chance is becoming a multi-planet species

To everyone in the HTX community concerned about the recent news, I’d like to clarify the situation and reduce unnecessary panic and misinformation. First, this is a relatively common compliance review process. We are actively communicating with all relevant parties to resolve misunderstandings as quickly as possible. HTX also sees this as an opportunity to further strengthen our compliance and risk-control systems, helping the platform become even more resilient. At present: Platform operations are normal User assets remain secure Deposits, withdrawals, and trading are functioning normally There is no need for excessive concern. For users asking what they should do right now, there are two options: 1️⃣ Do nothing You may simply wait while we complete communications with relevant parties and resolve the situation. HTX has operated for 13 years and has weathered multiple market cycles and industry challenges. We remain fully committed to protecting user assets and platform security. Our support team and I will continue to be available 24/7 to assist users. 2️⃣ If you still feel uncomfortable, you may temporarily withdraw assets on-chain Deposits and withdrawals are currently operating normally, and users are free to make their own decisions. ⸻ What happened? On May 26, the UK Foreign Office announced a new round of Russia-related sanctions under The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The list included 18 crypto-related entities and individuals, including a company named “Huobi Global S.A.” According to the UK statement, this entity allegedly provided financial services and technical support to the Russian exchange Garantex and the A7 crypto payment network. However, there is one very important point many people misunderstand: “Huobi Global S.A.” is not the same thing as the HTX exchange platform used by global users today. Many people equate a brand name with a legal operating entity, but global businesses often operate through multiple legal entities across different jurisdictions for compliance purposes. So: Sharing a similar brand name does NOT mean sharing the same legal entity, operational structure, or asset system. The HTX platform used by users today operates independently under its own structure. ⸻ Why users should not panic 1️⃣ The sanctions target a specific legal entity This is not a “brand-wide sanction.” The UK sanctions apply to a specific listed entity and do not automatically extend to all businesses using similar branding. The practical impact is also mainly limited to the UK financial and regulatory system. ⸻ 2️⃣ The sanctions mainly affect relationships inside the UK financial system This may include: Restrictions involving UK financial institutions Suspension of payment or intermediary relationships Asset-related measures within UK jurisdiction But this does NOT mean: Global user assets are frozen HTX has stopped operating Users cannot trade or withdraw funds At this time, the platform continues to operate normally. ⸻ Why did the situation escalate so quickly? Some third-party blockchain security providers applied broad risk labels to related wallet addresses in a “one-size-fits-all” manner. This affected certain normal user transactions and created unnecessary panic and speculation. Our compliance, security, and legal teams are already communicating with the relevant parties, and we expect the issue to be resolved soon. We understand the community’s concerns and will continue to communicate transparently. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us or our support team anytime.

Former Ferrari chairman Montezemolo tears the new electric Ferrari “Luce” apart: “I cannot say what I really think: I would harm Ferrari. We risk the destruction of a legend. So sorry. Take the Prancing Horse off. At least the Chinese won’t copy this car”