harry8

This isn’t something in which I’m an expert on any of the current details.

You can borrow a million dollars and use it to buy gold. An asset and a liability on the balance sheet each ba million dollars.

You can buy futures contracts with an underlying value of a million dollars. Nothing on the balance sheet. Zero dollars on both assets and liabilities.

The two are economically indistinguishable.

There are regulations around leases, for example, about what you have to capitalise on the balance sheet and when. Then there are workarounds for those rules. New rules cause the investment bankers to go to work. For a fee.

There's regulation update and work around. The point of channeling the 1980s is because it was simple for the 101 explanation. Investment bakers will structure it for you if you need it, inline with the current regulatory environment. At one time cross border leases were fashionable for tax purposes. I don't keep up with such things to know if they still are.

if you can't meet your obligations as and when they fall due, you're insolvent. Contractual specification from there.

Well technically they don’t own the debt

Channelling the 1980s for off-balance sheet financing 101.

From an economic perspective there is zero difference between borrowing to buy an asset and entering into a non-cancellable long term (equivalent to its economic life) lease for the asset.

The first option causes an asset and a liability on the balance sheet, affecting debt ratios that appear in financing contracts and so on. The second does not appear on the balance sheet.

You pay every month, like it or not. You call it interest or you call it a lease payment. You need it off balance sheet for reasons, investment bankers will structure that to make it happen for a fee.

Technically, from an economic perspective, it's debt.

Investors get spooked the only thing they can do is mark it to zero. There's no "getting your money back" It has been spent on salaries, servers, Washington PR firms, political donations...

Legal fees are insignificant to open ai. Either they get profitable and the money does not run out or they don't, eventually can't raise more and close leaving these proceedings irrelevant.

At no point is money as a resource being spent on this legal case any kind of meaningful constraint. Equally true for both open ai and apple.

You? You're toast if you need legal justice with either co on the other side. The law exists so that the strongest might not always get their way. It was a good ideal, maybe we should bring it back.

Oh go on.

Look down that list of winners and the list of top finishers for two decades prior to Armstrong and the amount of doping among them that we actually found about and seriously try to make the case that Armstrong is the reason for "cheat or don't bother showing up."

Oh do come on.

Bernard Thévenet won in 1975 and has said he was using steroids. Armstrong was 4 years old at the time. We don't know about all the drug cheating at the TdF, just what we do know is damning in ways we can't pin on the vile Armstrong. Do continue to loathe him as much as you like. He's earned that.

Ulrich, Riis, Fignon, Zoetelmelk, we haven't caught them all nor tried 1% as hard as those who got Armstrong did.

Look through the list and try and claim with a straight face that Armstrong was first, led the charge or that the Tour de France actually wanted to catch him or any other winner at all.

I don't care at all about Armstrong. The sport is clean now despite an ugly past. Just as it was when Armstrong won all those tours. Can I interest you in this bridge at a good price?

Who gets off scot free with the "It was all Armstrong" line.

If Armstrong stayed retired he probably would have gotten away with it, kept lying forcefully and be a secular saint by now. The TdF didn't catch him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#S...

If Armstrong still absolutely makes you want to vomit, that's fine.

https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/2503086-Lan...

You yourself are on drugs if you think Lance Armstrong "created the situation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#D...

Note the quantity that actually got caught and with enough evidence. Lance won it 6 times without getting caught.

Looking at it systematically there's no way all of the top finishers were not taking drugs (how else could they compete with the world's best who were? The advantage isn't small.) And it had clearly been going on for many years before Armstrong entered the event for the first time.

I really don't care for Armstrong's yellow banded hypocrisy but blaming him for the "cheat or don't bother competing" reality lets rather a lot of people off the hook with a convenient scapegoat.

But I'm sure that's all in the past and it's not like that now. Just as was said when Armstrong won 6 times while correctly stating he was the most tested athlete on the planet.

Wrapping it up and tying all that to Armstrong, as has been done, stinks. He was clearly a bit player in that extensive fraud. Six titles with no meaningful positive drug test as the most tested athlete on the planet.

Google's entire "do no evil" bring your own identity to the job and all of that was pure marketing to hire better engineering talent.

Instead of monetising software sales, they monetised access to Free software performing an end run around the GPL by distributing access to it over the internet allowing them to make the public good proprietary google property. They threw out some crumbs at best.

Remember the un-publicised puzzles to paradoxically get media attention, hiring highschool kids with a demo that made the news because it made the news and all the rest of the BS. I guess it worked. Now they're big and bad and the Free software optimism is largely dead so they don't have to bother and now make killbots for the Pentagon.

Where else you gonna work? Go test the market, nerd.

Saying "these two things are similar except one can be useful and one can't" is not a great comparison.

Launching a nuclear war is an interesting definition of "useful", not one I'd agree with and that exact scenario is what is being discussed.

So yes this is a perfectly valid and useful comparison in examining this particular, civilisation ending limitation.

When I started I learnt something about coding from VBA macros to automate excel.

Often that started with the macro recorder. Then you worked out what that "recorded" code/sludge did, removed the crud you didn't need or want, improved the logic and so on. I bought books to understand it better. Now you can ask a (different) LLM "what is this? why is it used? How would I?" etc which is probably a faster learning curve than books, newsgroups and old school personal home pages with good info.

I would have been quite surprised when I first used a VBA macro in anger just how far I would go down the rabbit hole. C, asm, verilog, Linux were no part of what I originally signed up for!

Some people will specialise in the equivalent of recording macros and go no further. And this will be fine for code that gets it done but doesn't matter too much in the other dimensions (security, reliability, usefulness without the authors' support, etc.) Much like VBA utilities inside companies that were useful way back when. Other people will want what they produce to be better, even good, and they will learn about floating point [1] and all the rest, much as I did. Probably learn pretty fast too. [2]

[1] https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.h...

[2] Working out how to write an excel vba webserver and using it to collect and and collate summary data from various divisions into reports was seedy as hell, solved the actual business problem (given ridiculous but intractable constraints) and isn't something you can record. We all have stories from a misspent youth that we're simultaneously ashamed and yet somehow proud of.

My 2005 saab

“ the original 2023 end-of-support page had been re-dated and rewritten on Microsoft's site; the "continue to function" clause was removed”

You sound like a shill trying to muddy the waters. It’s petty clear when they silently change their web pages to delete features sold that it’s quite deliberate or did they accidentally do that too? Do you have a direct or indirect relationship with microsoft perchance or just missed it in TFA maybe?

But they’ve got you. Nobody uses Microsoft office turdware unless they’re locked in and have to.

You lose access to it. You’re cooked.

Lan? Still awesome.

For my kids' parties I have 3x OG xboxes. Each has 4 controllers. Plug them into a router.

12 player lan. Halo, Nascar, (6 player) crimson skies, mechassult.

https://www.teamxlink.co.uk/wiki/Xbox sort by per console and total players.

I promise they have vastly more fun all being in the same room playing each other all at once than anything with modern graphics.

It’s fine looking car.

It isn’t a fine looking Ferrari or even close.

Ok, after 5 days I think we can safley describe Pete as a muppet given the total inability of anyone to describe a meaningful difference between member function and method either dfinitionally or in understanding by a desired audience. (Arguably those who understand the latter are a proper superset of the former).

The C++ community default hostility to everyone always really sucks. Useless, counter-productive pedantry forms part of this - NOT the parent is has been polite. Yes I'm being hostile, to Pete, who does not exist. Bjarne does, he likes belittling people in public. The C++ community is not hostile to him about doing it. Should some of us be doing that sometimes?

not "get", build it with an esp32 & Tasmota (or whatever).

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005010326236256.html

Would Pete get made fun of if he couldn't explain the difference between a member function and a method and why this distinction matters in C++ more than using the term understood everywhere else?

Go Pete!

So the first waymo to get to this less used road to john’s will not have the data rather than every waymo that travels down a new highway, that then becomes a problem if it rains.

One car with an issue of first coincides with rain on a less used road?

That website is absolutely appalling on mobile.

Your reading has serious issues.

“Something you know will NOT work” Is what is written right on the page. You quote it without the “not” wTH? Kernel mods won’t work much longer if they still work at all. Gotta find something else. What? Let’s see. Won’t be kernel mods.

Doesn’t make much sense to see this level of non comprehension of plain English. There’s no point talking against it what i say makes no difference if you read the opposite. Maybe this is convo with AI? Dunno.

Best.

Comprehension issue.

"Quotes" of something not said directly that you are quoting is always bad. Quotes containing a summary that is entirely false are even worse. Don't do that.

You can try to deal with cheating as chess.com and others _do_, or you can do something you know will not work. Kernel mods for chess.com would be stupid. Their anti-cheat strategy involves zero windows kernel mods. That is how it will go for all online gaming if it hasn't already. So use something else.

Windows kernel modules won't work much longer if they even still do. Pretending they will, doing nothing to stop cheating is a a nihilistic, give up, faintly ridiculous attitude.

could palantir consulting be replaced by LLM in the hands of a half competent hacker?

and will have to do something along those lines for online play.

This a new and exciting use of the word "solved." I don't think I'm completely comfortable with it, possibly due to being raised on a diet of anti-soviet propaganda that spoke of such thing as "freedom" "justice", not sure if people care much anymore but there it is.

The status quo's days are numbered. Online chess shows how.

An AI will play these games like a human but better. The AI can be totally separate from the windows box wearing anti-cheat ankle bracelets just as your brain a separate thing to the windows box when when you play. It can interact with the box via keyboard, mouse or controller.

No windows kernel module is useful in detecting and deterring chess cheating no matter how fanciful or factual the vibrating "device" stories are.

Anti-cheat by kernel module, it's day will be entirely done very soon if it isn't already.

"Any time you beat a computer at a game it let you win." Are we there yet? If not, how long?

Quite.