If SoftBank invests in a 30 Under 30 founder, does it cancel each other out, or does it effectively speed-run the time between investment and jail time
Most of successful founders are over 40. They should probably drop the paradigm entirely and start publishing a "40 over 40" list for up and coming founders.
For the record there are several regions, most with many many categories (some rather sad ones from the NA list: "venture capital", "social media", "retail and e-commerce", and "marketing and advertising"). There were 1230 total people on the global lists this year. Of course Forbes can't really defend itself because the notion of a "twelve hundred under 30" damages the pay-to-play golden goose. I would recommend poking around the list if you ever want a mood lightener. There are a truly comical number of people whose bio reads: "co-founder (CEO is over 30) of AI powered yadada which has raised $3M from investors". I think the median 30u30 business actually has considerably less revenue than a typical convenience store.
WTH good ranking for Forbes. How much % is fraud at Forbes?
JPMorgan was lured in by what appeared to be a database of 4 million users. In reality, that figure hovered around 300,000 users.
Federal prosecutors had requested a 12-year prison sentence. Lawyers for Ms Javice, who had pleaded not guilty, had asked for just 18 months.
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein also ordered Ms Javice to forfeit more than $22m - and pay more than $287m to JPMorgan together with her co-defendant Olivier Amar, the start-up's chief growth and acquisition officer.
Ms Javice, 33, made a name for herself in finance after founding Frank in 2017. The start-up was lauded for helping students navigate the college financial aid process, and Ms Javice was named on the Forbes '30 Under 30' list two years after starting the company.
Leadership of the political organisation, not all. However the military branch's leadership is/was in Gaza (like Yahya Sinwar and others who were killed)
> He has only forbidden you ˹to eat˺ carrion, blood, swine[1], and what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah. But if someone is compelled by necessity—neither driven by desire nor exceeding immediate need—they will not be sinful. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
[1]: Eating pork is forbidden in the Old Testament in Leviticus 11:7-8 and Deuteronomy 14:8.
On the Jewish side of things there's a principle called "Pikuach Nefesh" which essentially means that outside of extremes like murder, rape, and other violent crimes against others, you should do anything possible to preserve life. If you're an orthodox Jewish doctor on the Sabbath, and someone needs your skills to live, you're required to break the Sabbath and help.
A friend of mine lives in Montreal where there is a large orthodox Jewish population and he told me he was out walking one day and a woman started calling to him from the door of her house and gesturing for him to come over. She explained to him that she needed his help: there was an urgent situation and she needed to make a phone call, but because it was the Sabbath, she was not able to. He made the call for her and went on his way.
I always thought these workarounds were odd - does God have no objection to using proxies to get around the rules? Then again, my friend is not Jewish, so perhaps he can freely break the Sabbath because he’s outside the scope of the rule? Or is damned anyway?
Generalizing a lot here, but Jews and Christians interpret ambiguities within scripture very differently. Most Christians will try to maintain the spirit of the rule. Jews often view ambiguities as loopholes intentionally left by God. If the loophole wasn't mean to be there, God would have written it differently.
For a great example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv . Look carefully and you'll see these in Jewish areas of NYC like Williamsburg.
> I always thought these workarounds were odd - does God have no objection to using proxies to get around the rules?
Apparently, the consensus is that the God does not just approve of working around the rules, but actively _expects_ it. Otherwise the rules wouldn't have these loopholes, would they?
That sounds profoundly ignorant of human’s customs and cultural usages. Using "we" shows the orator includes himself in the group but the surprised tone "my god" has a bitter taste of despise.
I’m not Jewish but it’s easy to see similar mental gymnastics on myself or around. Remarking it on others before myself would show a great lack of introspection. When someone is surprised, the wise thinking is to question his own beliefs before the object of his discovery.
Which of my beliefs am I meant to question? That maybe there does exist an all-poweful, all-knowing being to whom it is somehow important that humans do not perform specific menial tasks on specific days of the week, since a lot of people seem to believe this?
> I always thought these workarounds were odd - does God have no objection to using proxies to get around the rules? Then again, my friend is not Jewish, so perhaps he can freely break the Sabbath because he’s outside the scope of the rule? Or is damned anyway?
There's a lot of crossover between Judaism and DnD player mentality. You're very much encouraged to learn the source material, the commentary and to discuss and debate it. Workarounds don't actually break the rules; and you need to put a lot of study into doing them properly.
Sometimes you need to take a sensible decision and choose to just flat out break the rules. In those situations one is encouraged to do so in an uncommon or abnormal way so it doesn't become habitual. This makes sense to me - I didn't smoke inside for the first 3 years of moving into my house, but the first time I did break that rule it made breaking it much easier the second, third, or subsequent times.
In your example given I can see a situation that isn't actually a risk to life (which comes under different rulings), but is still serious enough you need to take some action before waiting for Shabbat to end. A burst pipe would be a good example; it's not going to kill anyone but it could cause extremely serious damage if left. Asking for help rather than just picking the phone up and treating it like a regular day sorta makes logical sense in that context, though it's probably not what I'd choose to do.
Jewish laws only ever apply to Jews [1]; they have no expectation, want or desire for it to apply to anyone else, through conversion or otherwise. If your friend isn't Jewish then he's welcome to do what he wants. There is no damnation in the Christian sense for anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It's also possible to get into Jewish heaven without being Jewish, but you do have to obey a small subset [1] of the laws.
reply