277 karma · joined February 21, 2007
If, as you suggest, he is able to sell his shares at a greater valuation than the IRS uses to calculate his exit tax, then you are correct. When you renounce your citizenship, I have no idea how long the IRS gives you to actually pony up the exit tax.
Let’s work through it with numbers, in case that isn’t clear. Say Saverin has $100 worth of Facebook stock. He renounces US citizenship. He sells enough stock to pay $15 to the government, leaving him with $85 in Facebook stock. Over the next year, Facebook doubles in value, leaving him with $170 in stock. He cashes out, and there’s no tax, so he ends up with $170 in cash.
Now imagine he stays in the US. He has $100 in Facebook stock, which he pays no tax on because there is no taxable event. Facebook doubles in value over the next year, so he ends up with $200 in stock. Then he cashes out, paying 15% in capital gains, leaving him with $170 cash.
Clearly he ends up with the same amount of cash either way. Perhaps Saverin is avoiding tax by leaving the US, but neither this article nor any other article I have read identifies how he is doing so.
Sparrow for iOS is an insta-buy for me.
Why does `toSeq` compile, but not `toIndexedSeq`?
Set(1,2,3).toIndexedSeq sortBy (-_)
Set(1,2,3).toSeq sortBy (-_)
Why does `h` compile, but `f` does not? def add(x: Int, y: Int) = x + y
val f = add(1,_)
val h = add(_,_)""" The meta-paradox consists of two seemingly incompatible facts. The first is that the surprise exam paradox seems easy to resolve. Those seeing it for the first time typically have the instinctive reaction that the flaw in the students’ reasoning is obvious. Furthermore, most readers who have tried to think it through have had little difficulty resolving it to their own satisfaction.
The second (astonishing) fact is that to date nearly a hundred papers on the paradox have been published, and still no consensus on its correct resolution has been reached. The paradox has even been called a “significant problem” for philosophy [30, chapter 7, section VII]. How can this be? Can such a ridiculous argument really be a major unsolved mystery? If not, why does paper after paper begin by brusquely dismissing all previous work and claiming that it alone presents the long-awaited simple solution that lays the paradox to rest once and for all? """
"""One of Kurt Godel’s great insights was that you can go a lot deeper by considering a slightly different sentence: “This sentence is not provable”. If that statement is false, then it’s provable. But surely no false statement should be provable! So maybe the statement is true. In that case, it’s true but not provable, which says something about the limits of logic. It says that not every true statement can be proved.""" [1]
fn 1: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/12/13/a-tale-of-three-pa...
scala> val y y: java.math.BigDecimal = 2.2250738585072012E-308
scala> y.doubleValue() Hangs
This is one of those “harder than it looks” problems.
We have positions coding for our mobile clients (iPhone, Android, BlackBerry) and our server team. Our server code is all in Scala (booyah functional programming). It’s a superb team in fun work environment, full of exciting projects, and with an amazing dataset.
Feel free to send me an email at the same username, or apply through the web page.
It is a masterpiece. I wish that I could play it again for the first time.
As a toy example, imagine a company that could be worth $3, $30, or $300 each with equal probability. The logical valuation of this company is $111. A risk tolerant investor would pay $11.1 for 10% of the company.
Now imagine you have a 3x liquidation preference. If the company liquidates for less than 3 times your investment, then you get it all and the suckers holding common stock get nothing. How much will you pay for 10% of the company in this situation?
Well, if the company exits at $3 or $30 then you’ll get all of it, and if it exits at $300 then you get $30. The total expected value is ($3 + $30 + $30)/3 = $21. That’s almost twice what you’d pay if didn’t have liquidity preference! Even though, with 3x liquidity preference, you’d pay $21 for 10% of the company, $210 is clearly a nonsense valuation for the company as a whole.
In graduate school I could take math notes in real time as long as the lecture was fairly well structured and there weren’t too many diagrams. I think my System ID and Control notes turned out even better than the textbook.
Unfortunately, while I didn’t have any trouble running WhizzyTeX on Ubuntu, I never got it working well on OS X. I think I (maybe) got it to go using xpdf in X11, but it’d be much nicer if you could run Skim or Preview as viewer instead. If there’s ever a time when I need to do a lot of LaTeX again then I’ll definitely look into writing a patch.
I still dream that one day I’ll have something like WhizzyTeX for building websites. Imagine if you could edit your source files in your favorite editor and have the rendered webpage update with every keystroke. It’s the best of both WYSIWYG and plain source editing. You could definitely make something work if you were editing plain html, but if you’re using a framework (and who isn’t?) then it starts to seem a lot more complicated.