etjossem

If you invested because you believe in the long-term growth prospects of the company, then you expect them to plow their cash into increasing the top line, and a buyback can be a disappointing signal. If you invested because you believe it's a good income stock, a buyback is exactly what you want.

What the previous poster is trying to get at is that a big-ticket buyback signals an inability to invest that sum in a way that will improve growth or profitability. The best move to increase EPS is invest in capital improvements to increase earnings. If you can deploy money effectively, that means you're also growing in the long-term. Reducing the number of shares via a buyback also increases EPS, but it doesn't improve the top line.

In other words, a buyback is a way to increase your (and the CEO's) earnings per share even in the midst of stalling growth. So what I'm getting out of the previous comment is: don't confuse a buyback with continued growth; it's actually a "cashing out" moment.

So it looks like someone did make super obvious sockpuppets that posted some pro-Democrat content once. I still don't think you can generalize that to a trend - certainly nothing on the order of the Russian bots. If anything, /r/politics had a reputation at the time of being extremely favorable to conservatives.

It's a photoshop and you've been lied to. I hope this teaches you to think more critically about things, especially when they're what you want to believe. Thanks for playing.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/search?q=title%3APaul+Ryan+Sides+with...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/18ejnd/are_old_posts_...

The William_Trevino post is a real post on Reddit that was used as a template:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/search?q=author%3AWilliam_...

But all the other "FirstName_LastName" entries were edited in by the creator of the image. Unlike William_Trevino's entry, they have no associated Reddit post. You can try to find users by those names or posts with those entries' title, but they don't exist.

- https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/search?q=author%3AHoward_L...

- https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/search?q=author%3ATerry_Mo... etc.

I've gone ahead and flagged you for posting a completely deceptive photoshop of the truth. Please make an effort to fact-check yourself next time.

- The DNC was not paying Correct The Record. Like all super PACs, Correct The Record made independent expenditures on behalf of supportive donors around the country, and you can find their names here: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmt...

- Correct The Record had about a dozen full-time content producers writing favorable posts about the Democratic candidate online.

I'm not seeing any references to improper payments made by the DNC, nor do I see the Reddit connection. While we're on the topic of independent expenditures, would you like to talk about the 328 million Russian Twitter accounts that were used in the general election to produce paid pro-Trump content?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebo...

As a submitter doing a workaround, I'd much rather find a legit link to a non-paywalled version of the article, instead of copying content.

This is the link from Ohanian's Twitter announcement of the news. Mods, feel free to change the submission URL to this - it goes to the same article but doesn't trigger a paywall.

Men don't need it - in technology and many other industry spaces, we are comfortable voicing our experiences because we know they'll be well-received and affirmed by much of our audience. We're the prevailing voice in the broad group, so we're already being heard.

If you're creating a space for men only, it's either because you're part of another group with a sidelined voice (e.g. gay men) or because you have Damore-esque ideas about the world and really do want to be exclusive.

Nobody is trying to exclude you from these larger spaces. Though if we want to get rid of the stigma of tech, we can start by making them more welcoming and inclusive.

In other words: if seeing something like Leap makes you viscerally mad, focus on fixing the reason it needs to exist in the first place.

But what we don't always realize is that the internet isn't terribly inclusive in the first place. There's a prevailing atmosphere in well-populated tech spaces - Reddit, HN - that tends to shut down women's voices, especially if they're talking about an experience that men on the internet can't relate to.

I'm all for this project, hope it works out.

The problem with tech in particular is that we're often viewed as an inclusive and progressive industry. But when you run the numbers, we're no better than the law firms.

In a statement, Apache Struts wrote, "This vulnerability was patched on 7 March 2017, the same day it was announced ... In conclusion, the Equifax data compromise was due to their failure to install the security updates provided in a timely manner."

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/media-alert-the-ap...

It's a fairly broad definition. Per press release, Equifax made a data communication of this info to someone who did not show a permissible purpose under § 604.

I would argue that Equifax had months to patch CVE-2017-5638, but they did not. Their web application continued furnishing parts of my consumer report to anyone capable of running https://github.com/mazen160/struts-pwn.

--

FCRA § 604. states that "any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other", and lists allowable reasons to dispense a credit report.

FCRA § 607. requires compliance, stating that an agency must "limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604."

FCRA § 616. imposes civil liability for willful noncompliance at a minimum of $1000, even if that is greater than actual damages already sustained.

(a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of

..<snip>..

(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;

..<snip>..

(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow;

--

This suggests to me that you will be able to seek "actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater", plus any punitive damages the court awards (I do not believe this is generally done in small claims). You would need to demonstrate that the failure to safeguard your information was willful.

No, it is trivially easy to make the call when someone threatens harm to another player in real life.

You are right that nobody complains when pilots threaten each other in-character; everyone understands that the capsuleer characters are cutthroat and might try to intimidate each other. This is good fun, well within the spirit of the game. We're all just playing space pirates.

The problems arise when you say another player's going to be missing his hands. It's very clear here that this was the context, since it followed "whoever know[s] his real name, home address and other details [message] me." For an admin of a game, a situation this clear doesn't even take much thought - it's a straightforward reason to ban someone.

A think tank is a different sort of animal. The donor is not the main entity impacted by the policy proposals the think tank produces. Just like a responsible media outlet must have a notion of journalistic integrity, or a legislator's office should feel beholden to its constituents, a think tank has a responsibility to provide sound policy advice to its readers.

You can take the position that "think tanks do not have any level of responsibility to the people who consume their policy proposals" but I certainly would not follow you there. Policy institutes present themselves as rigorously data-driven nonprofits and write with an impartial air. If criticism / negative results are known to lead directly to a loss of funding, then it is disingenuous for the think tank to present itself as impartial, and I would consider it compromised.

We tend to solve this problem with regulatory agencies that represent the impacted consumer (and not the source of revenue), though I would note that this is the very solution the author was fired for praising.

Tip for writers: if you can use the same data to just as reasonably arrive at the opposite conclusion - "we want to feel clean and presentable before impressing other people" - then don't present your vague conjecture as fact. The article started to lose me as soon as I read this part. It was like a red flag of bad journalism went up.

People who have something to show for themselves find networking easier than people who are faking it? Sure, I believe that, but that's hardly news.

The only people to whom losing a 50-100k investment won't be life-changingly bad are either high net worth or high income.

There is a lot of frustration from this crowd about not being able to invest a sensibly small amount of money in an ICO / early stage startup / other risky thing. As a curious technologist who can handle a bit of risk, I can empathize! But we're not who the SEC is designed to protect. They're there to stop situations where people get half their life savings ripped off, and that is completely sensible.

Seriously, I don't get how this is hard for folks. It's unbelievably simple. Be aware that you may have professional power over other people, and if you do, make an active effort not to flirt with them. Have the self-restraint not to mix an investment/supervisory relationship with romance or sex. Either it will feel coercive, or it's a conflict of interest waiting to happen.

Avoiding trying to sleep with your subordinates is not rocket surgery.

We have a similar challenge in working with the fixed number of IPv4 addresses we're able to get our hands on. We offer our customers dedicated IP addresses for outbound email, but there are sometimes situations where a customer doesn't want to hold onto one forever.

We want to make sure mailbox providers (like Gmail and Hotmail) have time to realize the IP is not in use, rather than mistakenly associating it with the old customer. It makes sense to hold onto it for a while after the customer releases it before allowing another customer to purchase it. We call this the "cooldown period."

There's a key difference between gaming and other tasks - like graphic design and software development - that I think the article misses. Work demands portability, for being productive both in the office and while traveling away from it. But barring a few edge cases, gaming doesn't demand portability at all. There's no pressing reason you can't keep your gaming machine in one place, your home. That's the entire philosophy behind the console market. What these systems do demand is physically larger hardware and a slew of peripherals (displays, graphics cards, cooling, speakers, controllers).

Apple has been doing extremely well in the notebook market, but it has steadily lost ground in desktop. When the redesigned Mac Pro finally comes out, that might change. But until then, PCs will continue to dominate the desktop. And I do not see the desktop losing its spot as the best form factor for gaming.

I would not want to work remotely for a company that hasn't gotten used to distributed workers yet.