The shareholders cannot sue a CEO for simply not making money. Then nobody in their right mind would accept a job to turn around a failing company. To successfully sue, the shareholders must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the directors were not acting in the interests of the company. If the company needed to profit on a product to pursue its interests and the board chose to forgo this opportunity, then its shareholders could use this as evidence against the board in a lawsuit.
I am not claiming to know this company well enough to pass judgement on its CEO. I am saying their are circumstances in which he could accurately claim he is doing what he is contractually obliged to do. Claiming it is a moral imperative seems like bad PR to me, however.
To you "old fashioned style" is when there was no internet on phones? Holy crap that makes me feel old. Not only do I remember when there was no internet on phones but I remember when there were no mobile phones and there was no internet.
Rational people expect to be compensated for taking on risk. Recreational gamblers pay money to take on risk. This is the key difference. Sometimes, like you say, it's due to ignorance. Sometimes its because they get such a high from the few times they win, they're willing to pay silly money in order to recreate the experience, even if they know deep down it's self destructive.
Automated trading has been around since at least the early 90s. These machines are managed by people, maintained by people and continually developed by people. So yes, it does allow this industry to get more done with fewer people and gets it done quicker, but it is not close to replacing them entirely.
Obviously their function is not to prevent hurricanes. Nobody has made this ridiculous claim. If you don't know what "risk of ruin" means then google it and perhaps you'll better understand the point of that industry. Not all businesses are large enough to cover all their risks with their own capital and it is not in their interests or the interests of society to see them disappear due to some disaster they cannot prevent.
You can regard T1 as a causal loop rather than a many worlds interpretation. The terminator inadvertently ensured its own existence by leaving behind its broken remains. John O'Connor inadvertently ensured his own existence by sending his daddy back. There was also some photo at the end which I can barely remember but was also evidence of predestination.
In T2, the characters believed their future could be changed, and believed they had successfully prevented judgement day, at least in their world. They did not question (on screen at least) where the terminators actually came from if this was the case. We, the audience, could interpret it as the terminators came from another time line in which they were not stopped. We could instead interpret it as the heroes were wrong to believe they had succeeded, perhaps misled by a false account of the future from arnie. Either way our AI is behind the achievements of this T2 timeline, though possibly it had help from another timeline or its own future.
I'm aware T3 showed there was an alternative world in which judgement day was later but I'll happily dismiss this and later films as non-canon since they reduce the quality of the franchise. If there's only one world to save, then the stakes are easily understood to be high. If we go down the MWI, then there are a unfathomably large number of worlds being created, some which result in the heroes winning but some which result in the heroes spontaneously combusting. We may see them win in one world but the existence of the terminators at all suggests they fail in some other world.
Well if the basket of goods with respect to which the dollar is priced is made up of the world's biggest tech stocks, selected with hindsight, then this would be substantial inflation. Usually we use stuff like bread and milk though to compute inflation by which measure dollars are worth around 16% less than they were 8 years ago.
The denominator in P/E can be zero or negative making it a silly way round to do the quotient imo. It also means that concerning yourself with the order of magnitude of P/E can be misleading.
They have high market cap for different reasons. Apple has high profit margins due to its brand name, so high it rakes in more profits than it knows how to reinvest and ends up sitting on a pile of cash, hence the lower P/E ratio. Amazon is more about selling everything it can to the point that people simply shop from there whatever they want through force of habit. This is a highly desirable position to be in, hence the high market cap.
As far as mankind is concerned, the ideal temperature is anything in the range it has been over the last 10,000 years since we phased out the nomadic lifestyle and started living more in towns and cities. One reason why, is that we built them under the assumption that sea will not rise significantly, and if it does it will be expensive to deal with.
Life did indeed thrive during the eocene epoch around 50 million years ago, when it was hotter and early primate ancestors were well equipped to deal with it. We have evolved since then however, to be more suited to cooler temperatures. Note that the human race evolved during an ice age, and that we are still in that same ice age. If all we care about is that some life survives somewhere, then global warming is not an issue. The reason lots of people do care is because of its impact on mankind, particularly future generations.
Eventually the earth will turn into a desert regardless of whether we act or not. This is not hyperbole but a consequence of the sun getting continually hotter. This is expected to happen of the order of one billion years from now. Regardless of what we do, we can be sure the ice age will end eventually and we will have to deal with it. If it happens over millions of years then not only do we have time to plan and deal with it effectively but we have time to evolve into another species. If it happens over the next 100 years this is not the case, making it very much a plan B.
Excellent! Soon the creatures we can engineer will make the regular human look like nothing more than a dog with muscular dystrophy in comparison. And it's not ethical to breed dogs with muscular dystrophy.
So Newton managed to get his name used for the unit of force, Joule for energy, etc. They at most one unit each. Until Planck comes along and somehow gets his name stamped on units for length, mass, time and according wikipedia pretty much all the others too. The man's a branding genius!
www.thesaurus.com lists opinion as a synonym for 'point of view'. This makes sense because it is referring to how an individual makes sense of the world around him given the information he has access to at that moment be it sensory or from memory.
Different people have been exposed to different experiences throughout their lives and it affects the way they view the world. If you come from a privileged background and you are in a position pick and choose your entourage and lean toward sycophants, it can cause you to grossly overestimate yourself. The brain is not a perfect recording device, and memories are changed every time they are accessed. There is also selection bias in the memories we choose to access. It is very easy through these mechanisms for self assessment to diverge comically from the assessments of others.
A 'humble point of view' would refer to how the world appears from inside the mind of someone who does not overestimate himself.
Of course believing in yourself does not imply you are incorrect, but a lack of self scrutiny increases the chances of falsehoods slipping through the net and onto twitter.
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
And trump clings onto his not-so-humble point of view as firmly as he shakes those hands with his trademark OTT handshake. He just has to tell himself there's no greater point of view that that of donald j trump and the rest of the world can just bend and twist and distort itself around the imaginary pedestal on which he puts himself.
Slashdot Mirror
The shareholders cannot sue a CEO for simply not making money. Then nobody in their right mind would accept a job to turn around a failing company. To successfully sue, the shareholders must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the directors were not acting in the interests of the company. If the company needed to profit on a product to pursue its interests and the board chose to forgo this opportunity, then its shareholders could use this as evidence against the board in a lawsuit.
I am not claiming to know this company well enough to pass judgement on its CEO. I am saying their are circumstances in which he could accurately claim he is doing what he is contractually obliged to do. Claiming it is a moral imperative seems like bad PR to me, however.
He has a legal obligation to the shareholders. Calling it a moral obligation is a strange choice of words.
To you "old fashioned style" is when there was no internet on phones? Holy crap that makes me feel old. Not only do I remember when there was no internet on phones but I remember when there were no mobile phones and there was no internet.
Rational people expect to be compensated for taking on risk. Recreational gamblers pay money to take on risk. This is the key difference. Sometimes, like you say, it's due to ignorance. Sometimes its because they get such a high from the few times they win, they're willing to pay silly money in order to recreate the experience, even if they know deep down it's self destructive.
If a stock broker is allowing his clients to buy on margin, for example, then there is some risk to manage.
Automated trading has been around since at least the early 90s. These machines are managed by people, maintained by people and continually developed by people. So yes, it does allow this industry to get more done with fewer people and gets it done quicker, but it is not close to replacing them entirely.
Obviously their function is not to prevent hurricanes. Nobody has made this ridiculous claim. If you don't know what "risk of ruin" means then google it and perhaps you'll better understand the point of that industry. Not all businesses are large enough to cover all their risks with their own capital and it is not in their interests or the interests of society to see them disappear due to some disaster they cannot prevent.
Automation is already a thing. It has been making many jobs obsolete for many decades. Actuaries are still here.
It does prevent harm. They sell a product which reduces the risk its purchaser is taking, the risk of ruin. Ruin causes harm.
Imagine the money C3PO could have made if he didn't get roped into saving the galaxy like a sucker...
Yeah, Neo did that with spoons.
You can regard T1 as a causal loop rather than a many worlds interpretation. The terminator inadvertently ensured its own existence by leaving behind its broken remains. John O'Connor inadvertently ensured his own existence by sending his daddy back. There was also some photo at the end which I can barely remember but was also evidence of predestination.
In T2, the characters believed their future could be changed, and believed they had successfully prevented judgement day, at least in their world. They did not question (on screen at least) where the terminators actually came from if this was the case. We, the audience, could interpret it as the terminators came from another time line in which they were not stopped. We could instead interpret it as the heroes were wrong to believe they had succeeded, perhaps misled by a false account of the future from arnie. Either way our AI is behind the achievements of this T2 timeline, though possibly it had help from another timeline or its own future.
I'm aware T3 showed there was an alternative world in which judgement day was later but I'll happily dismiss this and later films as non-canon since they reduce the quality of the franchise. If there's only one world to save, then the stakes are easily understood to be high. If we go down the MWI, then there are a unfathomably large number of worlds being created, some which result in the heroes winning but some which result in the heroes spontaneously combusting. We may see them win in one world but the existence of the terminators at all suggests they fail in some other world.
According to terminator 2, judgement day should have been in 1997 so we're actually way behind schedule...
Nice to see the giant bees have made a start on their honeycomb.
We must take control of the aluminium supply and churn out some giant death robots!
Well if the basket of goods with respect to which the dollar is priced is made up of the world's biggest tech stocks, selected with hindsight, then this would be substantial inflation. Usually we use stuff like bread and milk though to compute inflation by which measure dollars are worth around 16% less than they were 8 years ago.
The denominator in P/E can be zero or negative making it a silly way round to do the quotient imo. It also means that concerning yourself with the order of magnitude of P/E can be misleading.
They have high market cap for different reasons. Apple has high profit margins due to its brand name, so high it rakes in more profits than it knows how to reinvest and ends up sitting on a pile of cash, hence the lower P/E ratio. Amazon is more about selling everything it can to the point that people simply shop from there whatever they want through force of habit. This is a highly desirable position to be in, hence the high market cap.
As far as mankind is concerned, the ideal temperature is anything in the range it has been over the last 10,000 years since we phased out the nomadic lifestyle and started living more in towns and cities. One reason why, is that we built them under the assumption that sea will not rise significantly, and if it does it will be expensive to deal with.
Life did indeed thrive during the eocene epoch around 50 million years ago, when it was hotter and early primate ancestors were well equipped to deal with it. We have evolved since then however, to be more suited to cooler temperatures. Note that the human race evolved during an ice age, and that we are still in that same ice age. If all we care about is that some life survives somewhere, then global warming is not an issue. The reason lots of people do care is because of its impact on mankind, particularly future generations.
Eventually the earth will turn into a desert regardless of whether we act or not. This is not hyperbole but a consequence of the sun getting continually hotter. This is expected to happen of the order of one billion years from now. Regardless of what we do, we can be sure the ice age will end eventually and we will have to deal with it. If it happens over millions of years then not only do we have time to plan and deal with it effectively but we have time to evolve into another species. If it happens over the next 100 years this is not the case, making it very much a plan B.
Yeah it seems like an obvious one. I'm sure many of us would have published these results years ago, if we didn't keep putting it off...
Excellent! Soon the creatures we can engineer will make the regular human look like nothing more than a dog with muscular dystrophy in comparison. And it's not ethical to breed dogs with muscular dystrophy.
Or it will be about time in an hour if we abandon summer time and wait the extra hour til it reaches the current time properly.
So Newton managed to get his name used for the unit of force, Joule for energy, etc. They at most one unit each. Until Planck comes along and somehow gets his name stamped on units for length, mass, time and according wikipedia pretty much all the others too. The man's a branding genius!
www.thesaurus.com lists opinion as a synonym for 'point of view'. This makes sense because it is referring to how an individual makes sense of the world around him given the information he has access to at that moment be it sensory or from memory.
Different people have been exposed to different experiences throughout their lives and it affects the way they view the world. If you come from a privileged background and you are in a position pick and choose your entourage and lean toward sycophants, it can cause you to grossly overestimate yourself. The brain is not a perfect recording device, and memories are changed every time they are accessed. There is also selection bias in the memories we choose to access. It is very easy through these mechanisms for self assessment to diverge comically from the assessments of others.
A 'humble point of view' would refer to how the world appears from inside the mind of someone who does not overestimate himself.
Of course believing in yourself does not imply you are incorrect, but a lack of self scrutiny increases the chances of falsehoods slipping through the net and onto twitter.
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
And trump clings onto his not-so-humble point of view as firmly as he shakes those hands with his trademark OTT handshake. He just has to tell himself there's no greater point of view that that of donald j trump and the rest of the world can just bend and twist and distort itself around the imaginary pedestal on which he puts himself.