1,134 karma · joined January 15, 2014
A bit like BMI, it could be useful for looking at in overall populations even if there are pockets where it doesn't measure overall strength in an accurate manner.
It's not saying if you train your grip strength you will live longer, but _generally_ those that live longer have greater grip strength than those that don't.
Too high and you end up with more experts who then decide "actually it's more beneficial to use my new skills for AI research"
Tricky to get right.
Incentivizing people to become AI experts as a means to US citizenship.
https://www.royalmint.com/stories/collect/why-are-some-uk-co... - the composition of 1p and 2p coins was changed from bronze to copper-plated steel in 1992 and the composition of 5p and 10p coins was changed from cupro-nickel to nickel-plated steel in 2011
Sex, Politics, Religion were the traditional ones to avoid. I'd also add 'childcare/how to raise children' as another one that can easily escalate/some people have very strong opinions on.
It's a bit like saying "Employee - $10K-$10M p/a" - It's not very useful in a job posting, as you might reasonably assume someone being paid the top salary is not actually doing the same role as at the bottom range.
As you say, makes delivery more expensive, as the drivers can no longer just leave packages and makes the interaction longer (+ more redelivery required).
e.g. Founders raise, selling off some of their shares as part of the raise. Everyone else has an illiquid asset, Founders can negotiate a payout.
The major shareholders can authorise issuance of new shares, different classes of shares, issue new shares with anti-dilution clauses. You're correct though, it's easier to value shares with a secondary market.
There are lots of schemes that an unscrupulous founder has at their disposal, so one has to be their own advocate and value their shares appropriately.
The founders are the ones that will be in the room when things like share dilution etc. are discussed. The employees (likely) will not.
The people in the room decide:
a) Who can cash out when b) Who gets diluted and by how much
If you're not in the room, you get no say.
Is it copyright?
Is it some protected legal mechanism encoded in law, or is it agreement(s) between parties (Broadcasters/TV/Film producers)?
Is it only in play if you explicitly say it's a particular person? Can you use an impersonator to voice over something without referencing the person in question/give no grounds to suggest it's a particular person? What if you hire a good lookalike? A soundalike?
If I rent out a space to A, they may have clauses that reference the rent/average rent for the building vs. their space. So it might be preferential for me to wait to fill a space at a higher price, financially.
In addition, renting out at a lower rate may end up turning up in surveys of rent in the area, leading to a lower average, meaning that future renters of space that is currently rented will try and negotiate downwards in the future.
Yes, you're meant to do KYC checks, but also be on the look out for things that your non-sanctioned customers might be doing (post KYC checks) that involves interacting with Sanctioned entities.
Hence lots of pattern matching on names of sanctioned countries/organisations/people.
And 6%? Try ~1.5%
I think the issue is that it's very hard to have open discussions about accepting that certain events are unavoidable and preferable to the second order impacts of trying to 'solve the problem'.
It's hard to talk about at least in part that 'the problem' in these situations tends to be a terrible event that can be avoided, but only avoided by doing lots of lots of 'ever so slightly terrible' things. And so it takes a toll on the soul to look at the balance and say that we should live with 'the problem'.
In a nutshell, when you buy an asset you can depreciate the value of the asset over the working life of the asset and in many tax jurisdictions (my knowledge/experience comes from the UK and US asset financing industry) offset that depreciated amount against profits, in the year the asset depreciates.
This means that you can essentially offset capital expenditure against tax, which is good business.
But if you don't make enough profit through the use of the asset at the right time, you end up losing the benefit.
But there exist large companies that make lots of profit, such that they can always offset the depreciation. And so _they_ can buy the asset, use the depreciation against their profits and then lease the asset to you. They might even be able to do this at a rate that ends up _being cheaper than you actually owning the asset_, depending on circumstances.
It's a set of failures in a system that all had to happen for the failure to occur.
Think less "buying a car" and more "buying a pint of milk". If you're buying a car and the store is closed, you might come back the next day. If you're buying milk you will just go to the store down the street.
(As opposed to precise-reproduction in output, covered by copyright)
And/or you feel better having done it.