Reading the details in another article, it seems like this was just old fashioned fraud. They used the same collateral for multiple loans and they were hiding other debt from lenders. Any loan agreement they signed would have required an affirmation that they weren’t doing either of those. They probably also went to some lengths to hide what they were doing, since payments to lenders would show up on bank statements, which underwriters certainly would have looked at.
If people will pay $30k for a car, I think the default assumption should be that they will readily pay that much for a 24/7 housekeeper. Our family would get way more utility out of a housekeeper than a car, but human housekeepers are very expensive, so we don't have one. Merely having our house cleaned once/week would be more expensive than our minivan payment.
IMO it's that frontend wasn't really a separate discipline at the time. Ember came out of Sproutcore, which was a framework created by some Apple MobileMe developers. They were building something that was very much an application development framework for single page apps before the term 'SPA' even existed. And I think people doing front end just weren't ready for that level of complexity yet. Most web developers were self taught and didn't have experience with UI frameworks and "real programming". At the time, doing frontend largely meant using jQuery to do ad hoc DOM manipulation and AJAX requests. Angular and then React came out and only tried to solve a subset of the problem that Ember was trying to solve, so they were easier for people to get started with. Then as time went on, it turned out that everyone did actually need solutions for everything else, but by then React had won.
It’s a completely legitimate question. It’s the same moral consideration behind whether drugs and alcohol should be legal. Banning them is good for people who can’t use them responsibly, but reduces the freedom of people who can. Given that we’ve flip flopped on the legality of alcohol, cannabis, and sports betting in the last 100ish years, it’s clear there is ambiguity about what is the best tradeoff.
If you look at the budget, it becomes obvious that the main activity of the federal government is taking money from one group of citizens so that another group of citizens, who are otherwise capable of working, can enjoy a life of leisure for the last 15-20 years of their life. Given that we’ve collectively decided that the bar for when we will massively impinge on people’s freedom is apparently to provide for other people’s idleness, I think it’s completely justified to also impinge on people’s freedom so that we can prevent problem gamblers from totally ruining their lives.
Interestingly, I think Apple has inadvertently positioned themselves very well to be able to authenticate various activity as being done by an actual human. What if anything they decide to do with that capability remains to be seen.
Right, but do the vaccines help against the strains of HPV that are transmitted via non-sexual contact? The vaccine being 9-valent implies (to me, a layman) that strains need to be targeted fairly specifically in order for vaccination to be effective.
OP here, I actually agree with you about inflation being different from tariffs (which are indeed taxation), but people do often just conceive of inflation as prices going up, which is why I chimed in about the timing of tariffs (which I probably have more insight about than others on this site, since the company I run is affected by tariffs and we’re just now starting to see competitors increase prices).
That being said, one hypothetical scenario is that tariffs shift demand to domestic manufacturing, causing the price of domestic manufacturing to increase due to supply and demand imbalance. This would result in prices going up without any tariffs being paid. Theoretically. I don’t think that will actually happen in the short term.
$4.60 is not an all time high for copper. Copper has been around this price for a while. It’s traded within about a 10% band for the last year. It had some fluctuations prior to that, but there hasn’t been any kind of long extended run up in price.
Next time just call the metal recycler and have them pick up from you! Never had an issue and we’re usually recycling several thousand pounds of copper wire at a time.
Every single major retailer does this. It's not collusion, it's just smart policy. Shelf space is insanely valuable. Retailers have customers walking around their stores (or making searches in Amazon's case) at the final step in the sales funnel. No retailer wants to get a customer that close to buying (often at considerable expense) then lose them because the brand either has weak channel price control or is trying to divert customers to their own website by offering a discount.
Then the argument is just that you need an Apple or Google account to use Apple or Google products. But that's widely true across all kinds of companies and product categories. I need a Microsoft account to use XBox, I need an account to pay my water bill, I need an account to use my home security system, etc. People expect products and services to have internet connected features. Accounts are what allow that to happen.
> The real problem is that @gmail.com or @icloud.com are now required to participate in society
They absolutely are not, though. I've been fully bought into the Apple ecosystem for nearly 2 decades and have used a Fastmail email address with it for the last decade (when I ditched my MobileMe email address). Similarly, I have never had an @gmail.com email address, though I've used various Google products.
The originally announced tariff rates have been “paused” (in reality they were never implemented), but in their place has been a 10% global tariff. China already had tariffs of 25% from the 1st Trump admin, plus 20% from February, so tariffs on goods from China are currently at 55%. But the rest of the world is at 10% right now (only the UK has actually signed a trade deal).
The 20% tariff from Vietnam has been announced by Trump, but unless I’ve missed something in the past week or so, it’s not official. There was a news piece I read a few days after he announced the 20% number that said the Vietnamese side had actually agreed to 11% and were surprised when he injected himself into the process at the end and announced a different number. So it sounds like it’s a WIP. I believe the only country that actually has a signed deal at this point is the UK.
That being said, the copper, steel, and aluminum tariffs announced recently are real and have been assigned import classification codes by US Customs (which is when new tariffs to become real).
FWIW, we’ve been affected by the tariffs (10% for now; we import mainly from Vietnam and Thailand at this point). Did our second price increase a few weeks ago. We’ll probably test out how much the market will bear because operating in this market really demands a risk premium. So far it’s not as crazy as the pandemic supply chain crisis, but it’s close. The most insane ending to all of this that I can imagine is that the tariffs get conclusively ruled unconstitutional and all the tariffs payed get returned. Would be a huge wealth transfer from consumers to businesses.
The problem with incentives is that they need to be ongoing. It doesn’t matter how cheap it is to build a factory in the US if foreign competition can still bring comparable products to market for cheaper. Because then you won’t sell anything, so your ROI is zero.
If you think genetics matter for success (or whatever you want to call it), test scores are a proxy, but a successful parent is a direct measurement of the trait.
Legacy admissions actually make a lot of sense if you think that genetics affect the outcomes you care about but also that the relationship between genetics and outcomes is stochastic and messy (which it is, as breeders in the 1800s knew even before the mechanism was understood).
Yeah, everyone is focused on TSMC as the company with the secret sauce, but really it’s Apple. Whichever foundry Apple goes with gets the majority of leading edge transistor volume.