HN user

forgotTheLast

227 karma
Posts0
Comments64
View on HN
No posts found.

If this is expected to be bad for ETF investors, what's stopping let's say Vanguard or Blackrock from creating their own index that tracks the NASDAQ but without the new inclusion rules, and then changing their ETFs' target indexes to that one. Vanguard is investor-owned so it would be in their best interest wouldn't it?

Humid air has higher heat capacity and higher heat conductivity than dry air which both increase convective heat loss.

Luckily Congress passed a law with bipartisan support to protect US service members from ICC custody (commonly referred to as The Hague Invasion Act).

It definitely is a thing in the eyes of Delaware courts:

In eBay vs Newmark: >Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders. The “Inc.” after the company name has to mean at least that. Thus, I cannot accept as valid for the purposes of implementing the Rights Plan a corporate policy that specifically, clearly, and admittedly seeks not to maximize the economic value of a for-profit Delaware corporation for the benefit of its stockholders—no matter whether those stockholders are individuals of modest means or a corporate titan of online commerce.

https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=143440

In the Trados case: >It is, of course, accepted that a corporation may take steps, such as giving charitable contributions or paying higher wages, that do not maximize profits currently. They may do so, however, because such activities are rationalized as producing greater profits over the long-term. Decisions of this nature benefit the corporation as a whole, and by increasing the value of the corporation, the directors increase the share of value available for the residual claimants. Judicial opinions therefore often refer to directors owing fiduciary duties ―to the corporation and its shareholders. This formulation captures the foundational relationship in which directors owe duties to the corporation for the ultimate benefit of the entity‘s residual claimants. Nevertheless, ―stockholders‘ best interest must always, within legal limits, be the end. Other constituencies may be considered only instrumentally to advance that end.

https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=193520

It depends on your legal jurisdiction but it means COs need to act in the corporation's best interest and not their own. In some places, that requires them to take shareholders' interests into account (especially for mergers or takeovers) but also the employees, consumers or creditors. In the US and notably Delaware, courts generally value shareholder value over anything else.

Considering the vast majority of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware, I think it's accurate to say most US companies only aim to maximize shareholder value.

On the one hand, with 1800 open issues and 800 open PRs (most of it probably AI generated slop) makes it a bit understandable for the maintainers to be slow to reply. On the other hand, the vulnerability is so baffling that I'll make sure to stay as far away as possible from this project.

My assumption is that this will end up replacing the DDG(X) program in name only and that all the Trump "upgrades" will be scaled back or removed.

The French DGSE was also exposed targeting dozens of american tech aerospace companies in the 90s (and probably still are). That type of state-assisted industrial espionage is pretty common, even between "friendly" nations. I think what's different now is the US announcing its intent to meddle into internal EU politics and supporting political opposition.

One argument against local fine-tuning was that by the time you were done training your finetune of model N, model N+1 was out and it performed your finetune out of the box. That kinda stopped being the case last year though.

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Hamas was the de facto government in the Gaza strip, so it was in everyone's best interest to fund them enough to keep their civil branches running (pre-oct 7).

Qatar does, the official allows, transfer $30 million each month to the Hamas administration in Gaza. But those payments are performed in consultation with Washington and Israel - and with their approval, he says.

Each month, he says, construction materials worth tens of millions of dollars are also delivered from Egypt to Gaza via the Rafah border crossing. those supplies are then sold by Hamas. He says the organization uses the proceeds to pay its administrative staff. Israel, in turn, he explains, supplies $10 million worth of diesel fuel to the Gaza Strip each month, with Qatar providing another 10 million to needy families. They receive $100 each, "martyr families excluded," the government representative stresses.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-partner-and-...