Exclusive: After a two-year battle to get hold of them, notes from of a secret meeting between Mark Zuckerberg and Matt Hancock reveal a UK government in thrall to Facebook and seemingly cowed by their threats:

Zuckerberg told Hancock the UK's 'anti-tech' attitude meant it was 'the only country in the world he will not visit [redacted]
After Zuckerberg was reassured by Hancock the tone could shift from 'threatening regulation to encouraging collaborative working' the 'ambience' of the meeting shifted from 'guarded hostility to cautious optimism'
DCMS fought for for two years to withhold the minutes, breaching the FOI Act twice in the process, with its lawyers making a last ditch attempt to stop the release
The Information Commissioner's Office ordered DCMS to release the meeting minutes after describing them as 'the only available insight and understanding' into Zuckerberg’s position on UK tech legislation
Some interesting context courtesy of @jason_kint, Hancock was sat next to Facebook's Joel Kaplan and Michael Beckerman (chief exec of Internet Association, lobbyists for Facebook) at an exclusive New York dinner just three weeks prior to the meeting with Zuckerberg in Paris
The meeting between Zuckerberg and Hancock was brokered by Matthew Gould, who would later be appointed as chief exec of NHSX without interview when Hancock became health secretary
Our revelations come days before the Government is due to provide its full response to proposals to regulate tech giants. @julianknight15 has expressed fears the government has already rowed back on the scope of its online harms legislation
For those who have scrolled this far, here are the notes from the meeting: https://t.co/5nNmYHB1NX
It turns out Facebook was not the only company Hancock was fawning over at VivaTech, Uber also got the same treatment H/T @jtemperton https://t.co/4ts0tWXOqY
Another concerning element of the whole process was DCMS making the veiled threat to the ICO that releasing notes from this meeting would mean future meetings were held 'off the record'. cf point 95 in the ICO's decision notice: https://t.co/SRnFO1dzrG
Relationships between Matt Hancock and Mark Zuckerberg still very cosy, Hancock says he has been doing a lot of work with Nick Clegg, who he refers to as 'Mark Zuckerberg's representative on Earth' https://t.co/mtfYvZzHRt

You May Also Like

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
One of the most successful stock trader with special focus on cash stocks and who has a very creative mind to look out for opportunities in dark times

Covering one of the most unique set ups: Extended moves & Reversal plays

Time for a 🧵 to learn the above from @iManasArora

What qualifies for an extended move?

30-40% move in just 5-6 days is one example of extended move

How Manas used this info to book


Post that the plight of the


Example 2: Booking profits when the stock is extended from 10WMA

10WMA =


Another hack to identify extended move in a stock:

Too many green days!

Read
THE MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORY OF SWASTIK

The Swastik is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon. Swastik has been Sanatan Dharma’s symbol of auspiciousness – mangalya since time immemorial.


The name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक, pronounced: swastik) &denotes “conducive to wellbeing or auspicious”.
The word Swastik has a definite etymological origin in Sanskrit. It is derived from the roots su – meaning “well or auspicious” & as meaning “being”.


"सु अस्ति येन तत स्वस्तिकं"
Swastik is de symbol through which everything auspicios occurs

Scholars believe word’s origin in Vedas,known as Swasti mantra;

"🕉स्वस्ति ना इन्द्रो वृधश्रवाहा
स्वस्ति ना पूषा विश्ववेदाहा
स्वस्तिनास्तरक्ष्यो अरिश्तनेमिही
स्वस्तिनो बृहस्पतिर्दधातु"


It translates to," O famed Indra, redeem us. O Pusha, the beholder of all knowledge, redeem us. Redeem us O Garudji, of limitless speed and O Bruhaspati, redeem us".

SWASTIK’s COSMIC ORIGIN

The Swastika represents the living creation in the whole Cosmos.


Hindu astronomers divide the ecliptic circle of cosmos in 27 divisions called
https://t.co/sLeuV1R2eQ this manner a cross forms in 4 directions in the celestial sky. At centre of this cross is Dhruva(Polestar). In a line from Dhruva, the stars known as Saptarishi can be observed.