I mean, you say more visible, but it’s not like these things haven’t always happened. I personally knew a guy a few years back who was UCMJ’d for being a racist.

I suppose you’re right that he didn’t have an article written in the Guardian about him, so it’s more visible in that sense. But it seems a little tautological to write an article saying things are more visible, if the “more visibility” in question is that you wrote an article about them.

I mean, the Army is on the record in the article as saying that the behavior would not be tolerated and that they are investigating. He’ll probably get UCMJ’d. I think “without repercussion” is strong.

Should there be more protections to detect this stuff early? Maybe. But, like, that doesn’t feel like as flashy a headline I guess.

And idk, should the Armed Forces have people actively monitoring all their personnel’s private lives 24/7? Seems a little much to me.

I’m just having trouble figuring out what the takeaway is. What “repercussions” do you want to see here? He gets punished in some way? Cause odds are good he will, if they can figure out who it is (since the Guardian didn’t share the name with the Army, per the article.) So what’s the story?

I mean, this isn’t good obviously, but it also doesn’t feel like news.

The US military employs almost 3million people. I challenge you to grab a broad swath of 3 million people and not have a few neo-nazis in the bunch.

Which isn’t to say that it’s okay or should be tolerated. Just that, like, it isn’t news. Or, at least, not any more news than “Nazi sypathizer exists on earth” is news.

You are taxed on the gains, not on the total sale volume.

So if I buy something today for $5, and sell it tomorrow for $6, I pay the 37% on the $1 of gain.

So my takeaway is $5.63, not the $3.78 it would be I was taxed on the full sale.

It’s also worth noting that capital losses can offset gains. So if I made $1000 on one trade, but lost $1000 on another, my effective tax is $0, because I didn’t make any money.

This can get squishy though, as there are a lot of accounting loopholes you can do to count things as “losses” that are more losses on paper than actual losses.

Idk man, he’s a public figure. Like, would we be this mad if Kamala accidentally leaked her phone’s contact list (names only, no numbers)?

And to be clear, it’d be another thing entirely if he had, like, secret government sources in his contact list or something. But I don’t see anyone saying that as far as I can tell. It’s just his personal friends and contacts.

Nah, Venmo contacts are often based off of your phone contacts. So that’s probably just a list of people he has saved to his phone (who also have Venmo).

And even if you did have to pay someone for them to show up, it still doesn’t seem like much of a scandal. It’s not like someone in the contact list was “drug dealer” or something. Who cares if he venmo’d a coworker $20 for lunch?

Idk man. Like, leaking your phone’s contact list probably isn’t the best thing ever, but it’s hardly a huge deal imo.

Fair, but I didn’t see any contacts that were terribly surprising or concerning.

I mean, I think most people on Venmo have it set this way. It’s the default. I wouldn’t call it inept.

It’s not privacy focused for sure, but then, using social media in any capacity isn’t. I’m unconvinced this is crazy worse.

Sure, but that’s not a scandal. You could call Trump’s Twitter follower list the same thing.

It says none of their actual transactions was visible, just their friends lists. And Venmo has a long history of trying to be the “social media” of paying people.

So, like, I’m no fan of the guy, but ik confused why this is news? I can probably see his followed people on Twitter too, but that’s not a scandal. If there aren’t any sketchy payments or anything, what’s the issue?

Probably, but if you’re interpreting user inputs as raw code, you’ve got much much worse problems going on, lol.