Why didn't you assign the project to one of the high school students? If that's their level of competence, you'd be better off with the sane secure defaults on a Linux. It's a learning project for them, and dirt cheap R&D for you.
Without short sellers, speculators pump the prices and then dump at profit. Short sellers - when competent - help fight pump and dumps by leveling the price movements.
If TSLA goes private, short sellers are going to be providing $20B of funding to help TSLA go private. All their positions will be closed and they won't be able to play the borrower's game anymore. It's odd that none of the stories trying to figure out where the money will come from seems to note this.
Yes, because in the land of Oligarchia, only a dozen or so institutions are allowed to control the world through capitalization. No one else has any say, so it's sufficient to simply ask the oligarchs.
That was my first thought as an investor. My hope is for a short squeeze, which could result in a $20B injection, which can send the price far higher than $420. I'm not upset though because I'm not a fucking litigious snowflake like the idiot shorts.
Aren't all physical properties above the quantum scale simply emergent properties? Motion itself is an emergent property that doesn't really happen at the quantum level; how could gravity NOT be emergent if it is described in terms of motion?
I wonder if it's possible to mount a virtual ext4 filesystem for your Dropbox folder using FUSE. So, even if you have an encrypted home folder, you can have an unencrypted filesystem mounted inside of it.
Agreed. I mostly just use it to share media files between machines. I use it for mildly sensitive materials, but nothing for which I would feel compelled to encrypt on my own local machine.
You're misunderstanding or misconstruing how UBI is generally suggested to work. You seem to think we're going to give everyone $40k/year to live a middle class life. No one ever seriously recommends that's how UBI should be scaled.
Generally, you want to target subsistence living. Enough to rent an apartment with 3 other people and feed yourself. Depending on the community, this might be $10k/year, or it might be $35k/year (maybe more in SF/NYC, but those are special cases). People living below this level of poverty already receive all sorts of expensive benefits, which are intended to be replaced by UBI.
Some studies show that UBI is actually cheaper than comparable government services due to inefficiencies and overhead related to means testing and regulatory oversight. This makes sense. We use markets to solve all sorts of complex problems related to limited resources. Poverty assistance is a limited resource; markets are likely an effective tool for getting more efficiency out of the system.
What part about "now I have to verify TLS certs, owners, UTF8 charactors" are you not understanding?
This bullshit where every individual provider has their own way of doing shit is why end-users just click "Yes, please get me through this bullshit security nonsense" and don't verify this. When I'm downloading shit for my phone, I'm on a mobile browser and far less likely to want to go through bullshit of verifying all this crap. If you don't care about security or don't care about your time, then go ahead and use any store you want.
I personally don't have time to waste on companies that are giving me more work so that they can earn more money.
You know triple A game titles nowadays sometimes take 5-10 years to develop? So, if you start releasing early marketing materials, your game's assets are essentially out of copyright by the time you hit your first year of sales. That's fucking stupid. Perhaps think about why we have copyright in the first place, rather than how you can get your cheap, grubby hands on free shit.
While copyright IS too long, suggesting that copyright length is impacting video games like Pac-Man assumes a copyright term that is too short. Pac Mac is barely old enough to run for President. I think it has a few more years of shelf life for its creators.
I think it has more to do with ops not having the requisite skillset to understand the problem. Only someone who understands the software stack can deliver great solutions. That's where devops comes in. And this surely led to devs wearing two hats, but it's less a hiring problem than it is a mismatch in what developers expect from ops compared with what ignorant MBAs expect from ops. Our standards are higher and traditional ops folks don't cut it.
No, it just turns out that once you realize security isn't a checkbox, but an approach that is infused into every decision, then you internalize the process and it's no longer a struggle. The only struggle is to convince others that features aren't important if your customers all get hacked.
A blank check is not necessary, but what is necessary is to abandon any hope of directing your DevOps schedule. It's done when it's done and not a day earlier. DevOps solutions should allow your developers to be flexible and agile, but oftentimes this erroneously translates to DevOps doing the bare minimum, which does not include secure solutions, typically.
That's how free markets work. Can't handle freedom? Go hide behind your regulatory regime that seems to be making all the bankers rich and everyone else poor.
Firstly, having a right to select which traffic goes through the network does not limit your common carrier status. Only acting on that right limits your common carrier status. Secondly, traffic shaping is not even close to what they are talking about with common carrier status; they are talking about censorship and controlling messaging.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the wrong for the short sellers? The pumpers push prices away from fair value. Short sellers correct it.
Saying two wrongs don't make a right is like saying police shouldn't use guns when going after violent criminals.
Why didn't you assign the project to one of the high school students? If that's their level of competence, you'd be better off with the sane secure defaults on a Linux. It's a learning project for them, and dirt cheap R&D for you.
Without short sellers, speculators pump the prices and then dump at profit. Short sellers - when competent - help fight pump and dumps by leveling the price movements.
You're an idiot. In a free market, you buy what you want, including short positions.
And short sellers (who don't try to manipulate the market) play an important role in providing market stability.
If TSLA goes private, short sellers are going to be providing $20B of funding to help TSLA go private. All their positions will be closed and they won't be able to play the borrower's game anymore. It's odd that none of the stories trying to figure out where the money will come from seems to note this.
I think you need to learn about capital expenditures.
You can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Yes, because in the land of Oligarchia, only a dozen or so institutions are allowed to control the world through capitalization. No one else has any say, so it's sufficient to simply ask the oligarchs.
That was my first thought as an investor. My hope is for a short squeeze, which could result in a $20B injection, which can send the price far higher than $420. I'm not upset though because I'm not a fucking litigious snowflake like the idiot shorts.
Short sellers need to man up and own their bad financial decisions. When I make a bad investment, I don't start looking for people to sue.
If you can't handle the stress of losing a short sale, stay the fuck away.
Aren't all physical properties above the quantum scale simply emergent properties? Motion itself is an emergent property that doesn't really happen at the quantum level; how could gravity NOT be emergent if it is described in terms of motion?
I wonder if it's possible to mount a virtual ext4 filesystem for your Dropbox folder using FUSE. So, even if you have an encrypted home folder, you can have an unencrypted filesystem mounted inside of it.
Agreed. I mostly just use it to share media files between machines. I use it for mildly sensitive materials, but nothing for which I would feel compelled to encrypt on my own local machine.
You're misunderstanding or misconstruing how UBI is generally suggested to work. You seem to think we're going to give everyone $40k/year to live a middle class life. No one ever seriously recommends that's how UBI should be scaled.
Generally, you want to target subsistence living. Enough to rent an apartment with 3 other people and feed yourself. Depending on the community, this might be $10k/year, or it might be $35k/year (maybe more in SF/NYC, but those are special cases). People living below this level of poverty already receive all sorts of expensive benefits, which are intended to be replaced by UBI.
Some studies show that UBI is actually cheaper than comparable government services due to inefficiencies and overhead related to means testing and regulatory oversight. This makes sense. We use markets to solve all sorts of complex problems related to limited resources. Poverty assistance is a limited resource; markets are likely an effective tool for getting more efficiency out of the system.
What part about "now I have to verify TLS certs, owners, UTF8 charactors" are you not understanding?
This bullshit where every individual provider has their own way of doing shit is why end-users just click "Yes, please get me through this bullshit security nonsense" and don't verify this. When I'm downloading shit for my phone, I'm on a mobile browser and far less likely to want to go through bullshit of verifying all this crap. If you don't care about security or don't care about your time, then go ahead and use any store you want.
I personally don't have time to waste on companies that are giving me more work so that they can earn more money.
You know triple A game titles nowadays sometimes take 5-10 years to develop? So, if you start releasing early marketing materials, your game's assets are essentially out of copyright by the time you hit your first year of sales. That's fucking stupid. Perhaps think about why we have copyright in the first place, rather than how you can get your cheap, grubby hands on free shit.
While copyright IS too long, suggesting that copyright length is impacting video games like Pac-Man assumes a copyright term that is too short. Pac Mac is barely old enough to run for President. I think it has a few more years of shelf life for its creators.
Wish people were boycotting Nintendo last year when they released their NES Classic. That shit was impossible to get your hands on...
You mean how Nintendo continues to release classic game consoles including old games from the 80s? That sort of "use it"?
Aren't ads just messaging designed to trick people into making bad financial decisions?
None unless you perform a full audit.
It's quicker to build your own, with a more complete understanding of the security surface.
I think it has more to do with ops not having the requisite skillset to understand the problem. Only someone who understands the software stack can deliver great solutions. That's where devops comes in. And this surely led to devs wearing two hats, but it's less a hiring problem than it is a mismatch in what developers expect from ops compared with what ignorant MBAs expect from ops. Our standards are higher and traditional ops folks don't cut it.
No, it just turns out that once you realize security isn't a checkbox, but an approach that is infused into every decision, then you internalize the process and it's no longer a struggle. The only struggle is to convince others that features aren't important if your customers all get hacked.
A blank check is not necessary, but what is necessary is to abandon any hope of directing your DevOps schedule. It's done when it's done and not a day earlier. DevOps solutions should allow your developers to be flexible and agile, but oftentimes this erroneously translates to DevOps doing the bare minimum, which does not include secure solutions, typically.
That's how free markets work. Can't handle freedom? Go hide behind your regulatory regime that seems to be making all the bankers rich and everyone else poor.
Firstly, having a right to select which traffic goes through the network does not limit your common carrier status. Only acting on that right limits your common carrier status. Secondly, traffic shaping is not even close to what they are talking about with common carrier status; they are talking about censorship and controlling messaging.