jVinc

The base position taken in some countries of not providing bailouts, or bailouts above a certain limit, to companies who carried out stock buybacks or issued dividends was fantastic in my opinion, because it makes situations like this extremely bad for the company.

Of cause a company would want to give huge bonuses to execs who manage to pull in a huge amount of money from the state, that's great for the company. Why should a company care if executives are being rewarded or are being selfish if it also benefits the company and owners overall?

But with the exception to the aid, that would only be possible if the same execs brutally punished the stock owners, which would obviously put them in bad light for being selfish and not just doing good for the company.

So it's a "scam" because they are promising something they can't deliver straight away? Isn't that basically a description of every startup company ever?

Sounds a lot like the "CEO" is a just sales rep for your company who did a great sales pitch to get you into YC, but who didn't even commit enough to the company to want to do it fulltime unless the person could get majority ownership.

As others have mentioned, you might want to try to pull the business out of the company and get a better sales rep, with a more appropriate single digit or less equity.

This kind of ego trip happens all the time in companies, when a sales rep closes a deal for X$ and they believe they just made the company X$ profit, fully ignoring not just all costs, but also every single contribution from everyone else at the company that put them in a position to even try to sell whatever was pitched, and everything that will be needed to deliver it.

That's perfectly fine mentality for a sales rep, but no for a CEO. Which seems obvious.

> First Amendment issue. In the United States I can write, or say, any number I choose to.

That is complete and utter nonsense. A child pornography video is just a blob of text, essentially a big number. And you certainly can be prosecuted both for distribution and for storing child pornography. just because you have the imagination to boil everything down through bits to a number does not mean the First amendment becomes a shield for anything. A tweet stating you want to assassinate the president is equally "just a number" and also not protected by the first Amendment.

If we're talking about general good, I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would pick Facebook as "the thing" to disappear. I mean aside from the idealistic candidates like Wars or Guns, what about cigarettes, alcohol or all the other drugs that are widely used, have clear connections to depression and most of which will also literally kill you if overused? I really doubt getting rid of Facebook would do the world more good than any of those candidates. But of cause freedom of choice and let each pick their own poisen etc.

The data being used to back this is very much a "children" issue, a adolescent female issue to be exact. The rate of depression stated to skyrocket in 2012 for this specific group.

This also seems to be an obvious counter to the implied hypothesis that "rate of depression increases linearly with facebook usage" since they launched in like 2005 or so, grew steadily from at least 2007, and also have most likely seen a significant decline in usage among adolescents in the recent years.

> Dogecoin is at $0.60. ... That’s really all you need to know about it.

I have a rock based currency worth 1$ per rockcoin. Not anything impressive about that at all.

What is impressive about Dogecoin currently isn't the exchange rate, it's the $78 Billion market cap and the fact that the market has liquidity at that market cap. The unit price of something you can almost arbitrarily subdivide isn't really worthwhile mentioning on it's own. Without additional information, it might just be another rockcoin isolated with a hypothetical or low total value.

I might be wrong here, but this is my understanding.

You'll always be able to show a blue ball as the second ball after the first is drawn. So arguing that it tells you something about the statistics of the state of the system after the first has been drawn is wrong. The chance that the first draw is blue is 50/50. The arguments that lead to 1/3 are trying to use the second event as a statistic for the state, however for that to be appropriate the problem would have to be phrased as:

You draw one ball and set it aside, then draw another, if the second ball is red, you start the entire thing over, if it's blue, then you continue the experiment.

Because otherwise the assumption that the second drawing can tell you the statistics of the underlying state is wrong.

The question of the odds really boils down to, did we randomly pick a ball and observe it? And if so, what would have happened if we didn't observe what we specifically stated for this instance.

I owe you an apology, you're correct, I was wrong. I can't pinpoint where my reasoning failed me exactly, but my confidence certainly was misplaced, and that's from someone who did do the simulation originally to understand the outcomes, but not to understand the distinction between the host deliberately or randomly revealing the door. I'm sorry, but thank you for you persistence in correcting me. It was a fruitful learning experience to dig into this problem again.

> as it changes the answer.

It doesn't. If the host randomly reveals a car, then you have 0% chance to win. If he doesn't you have 66% chance to win by switching.

It's funny to me that there always seem to be an over representation of rude people among those who get this problem wrong. There is absolutely no need to attack my person.

As for the problem, you are just plain wrong. We are talking about are regular old TV-quiz, there is not "universe resetting button" to save your logic.

In the regular situation, the host always remove a goat. because otherwise the quiz show is kinda boring. But in the modified version we are considering where he just picks a door at random, then in 2 of the 6 possible outcomes for the door the host picks, he'll be removing the car. Now since the problem has the host showing the doors content, that should be the end of the game show. Who want's to see someone pondering if they should switch between a goat and another goat right? But that doesn't change the logic at all, because the conclusion of "you should always switch" isn't impacted in any way. 0% to 0% is just no change. And in the rest of the cases your'll go from 33% to 66%.

Now of cause what would happen in your odd example where the host has a universe resetting button is that you don't have any choice at all, because no matter what the host will reset the universe until they maximize ratings, which might have you get the car or might have you not get the car, but there's no choice to be taken and the outcome that has maximum rating will always happen with 100%. That's why most stats problems avoid introducing "then the host resets the universe" in their problem description, it kind of ruins the whole point of calculating proabilities.

I didn't state that it doesn't change your odds. Obviously going from 33% to 0% because the car isn't possible to win anymore will be a change of your odds. I stated it doesn't change anything, because in one situation you go from 33% to 66% by changing and in the other you go from 0% to 0% by changing. So there is no difference to the logic of always switching because it either improves your odds or keeps them the same.

> vs "the treadmill moves backwards to keep plane airspeed at 0".

You might be correct in thinking people misunderstand it as that, but that's physically impossible, so I don't think you can argue that people have some sort of alternate understanding under which they are actually correct. That's just one type of wrong reasoning people might apply to the problem.

Add to that, in your hypothetical understanding of Monty Hall, that actually still doesn't change anything. Because even if the host picks a door completely at random, you still should always switch, it would just sometimes be the case that the host goes "ohh, that's to bad, I revealed the car and you can't win it now", but obviously that doesn't do anything to change your odds, because you're always better off or the same by switching, it's just in the unfortunate cases you'r switching from 0% change to 0% chance. But that doesn't do anything to change the fact that if he didn't reveal the car you're still going from 33% to 66%.

Walmart isn't competing openly though. They have a 100% monopoly on wallmart shelf space. Target is a different platform down the street sure, but that's like Apple vs. Samsung. You can't get the Apple app store on a Samsung, and you can't get the android appstore on an iPhone. But Target can't put products on wallmarts shelves and wallmart can't put products on targets shelves.

Netflix is certainly capable of mildly pressuring production companies to follow guidelines like paying their workers in order to get the contracts.

> No it just causes more money to go into the stock market

A bank run is when people pull their money out the banks. If you want to put your money in the stock market you need to pull it out of the bank.

> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!!

This seems to be the case for all markets. I don't really see myself winning a case against wallmart if I complain they want a markup on sales of my product and that they are misusing their "monopoly" on "wallmart shelf space" by not allowing me decide to put my products in their store without their say, or without letting them earn money on the transactions that happen through their store.

> I know I would have been benched or cut if I talked about throwing a game or not trying my hardest and those statements

Do you think you'd get a years suspension as a 14 year old if you'd said "fuck this team" to a friend after losing a match? And do you really think that would have been an appropriate response?

You can't compare her venting to threats of throwing games or intentionally under-performing.

It's sad to see fastapi getting a win by essentially drumming up drama on social media and telling the mob to storm the capital. But hopefully this buys them time to fix the problems they are seeing with postponed evaluations.

I feel however that there have been plenty of time and opportunities to engage in this discussion more constructively than what happened.

Trying to clarify it a bit, it gets interpreted as: "[0xf or (x in (1,2,3))]" and the "or" short circuits, never evaluating the second part (which would have given an uninitialized variable error). This therefore evaluates to [0xf] or just [15] once you convert the hex notation to an integer.

If you neglect the outer list that's only there to fool you into thinking this has something to do with list comprehensions, same as the x, and if you don't use hex to make it seem like there is a "for" in the middle, it boils down to something like: "15or whatever()" which doesn't seem all that confusing, even if "whatever" uses an uninitialized variable like x, or is undefined, because we're in Python and it's only evaluated when it runs. Then we are left with the 'confusion' boiling down to a Wat about why it's legal to do "15or 3" without space before or, and especially why "x0for 3" works. This is documented as other comments mention and is due to the way the parsing works.

I don't know if the parser could be changed to require a leading space before the or operator, but it's pretty clear to me that this is only confusing if you intentionally do you very best to try to add confusing structure around it in an attempt to fool the reader into thinking something very different and weird is going on.

The first study cited was work equated, meaning the shorter break group did additional sets. This seems to contradict your hypothesis.

If you read their material you'll see that they are expecting the project to "meet the world" in 2022 and are looking to achieve widespread adoption by 2040. As others have mentioned this might seem like forever in tech-startup terms, but they aren't aiming to just make a "AR-projector setup", they have much more ambitious goals, so it seems reasonable to also work on longer timelines, including keeping the "baby" in the crib until it's ready to walk instead of crawl.

To add an additional layer to this, unions are a market level element, not something individual to one company, so unions don't threaten Amazon in any way, in fact they might help amazon further increase their moat by increasing the barrier to entry.

Unions are a threat to the billionaires, not the company. So this is also to say that Amazon will lie when there is a risk to the bottom line of it's ownership. That is very different than being willing to lie if the company itself is threatened.

The act of donating is not just something that happens in a vacuum, and having ties to Epstein just ends up leading to tons of questions. "Did someone exchange favors for sex? What caused Epstein to donate? Who was engaging in what sort of relationships with him and his associates?"

This is why you don't just accept any and all donations from anyone. And here the best option seems obviously to close the center and open something new that does not have the ties to Epstein hanging over it.

What a journey it has been.

http://www.example.com

http://example.com

https://example.com

example.com

We're finally getting there! Now just a decades to go and we'll reverse the order to get

com.example

After which we'll wait a couple of decades to decide we don't need TLDs as ICANN is instead just given a free pass to print any amount of money they want without that silly distraction. Then we'll be at just:

example

which is just one step from the final solution which is that no URLs will be needed because the browser will just open up to Amazon who after final approval of their purchase of Google will at that point own not just the internet but the entire world.

I always figured Netflix didn't crack down on this because they knew the risk they run by pursuing it and had weighted out the risk vs reward and concluded that the value of having a larger market out-weighted what they might be able to squeeze out of their current customers. I guess this might mean Netflix is looking forwards and are expecting less from a growing market as the competitive pressure from Disney, Amazon etc. and are thinking that they'd better try to claw in some profit expecting not to grow their market?

> He's a good kid. He didn't deserve that. Where's the mentors? Where is the help for him?

Well obviously at the school but...

> was late or absent 272 days.

I feel like the story here isn't that the schools are failing parents, it's that parents are going to absolutely aburd lengths to try to blames schooles after the fact for their own failures.

She ignore her childs education for 3 years, and so did her kid, and suddenly at the end of it she's going "whaaat!?" when they tell her that this has consequences.

There are many things about the Scaled Agile Framework(Safe) I don't like, but rebranding sprints to iterations is something that I really like. It's not about being faster, it's just about time-boxing development activities and making planning, communication, demoing and retrospection a routine part of your team activities within that time-box.

> Besides being a dream for micromanagers

I really don't get how people come to this conclusion about scrum. The alternative to scrum is the Project manager dictator regime, the literal micromanagers dream, where the pm can at any time jump by your desk and say "drop everything you are doing, and do this thing for me right now", and where the estimates are just whatever the PM decides to communicate, but when you fail to deliver a fully functional product in the 2 months the PM pulled out of thin air, it's somehow your fault.

In Scrum, the PO should be prevented from micromanaging, since he's not telling anyone what to do. There's a product backlog which the PO can prioritize sure, but that's the level of interaction. The team pulls work into the iteration backlog, so nothing should be picked up that the team doesn't agree to do. And each individual team member picks tasks from the iteration backlog, so nothing should be forced upon you. As for the daily stand-ups there should be no management in that meeting, it's a 15 minut maximum meeting between only those who have items in the spring back-log, which most often should not include the PO. If it's turning into a day-by-day status meeting you need your Scrum Master to step in. The board and iteration deliveries should be enough status to go by.

Offering alternatives to people who prefer to eat plant based meals rather than meat based ones is hardly a "crusade against meat". I understand you would feel attacked if these corporations were going out and saying "no more meat" in reality, they are just putting 1 or 2 options on the menu which allows people who don't want to eat meat to still eat unhealthy takeaway. No one is trying to force you to not eat meat. But the status Que you are trying to desperately defend has people choosing a vegans or vegetarian diet completely unwelcome at mainstream fastfood restaurants because there is nothing for them on the menu, not even the french fries are vegetarian. And for what purpose? KFC and McDonald is just as happy taking your money and slinging over a burger without a patty as one with one. So why shouldn't they offer plant based alternatives?