HN user
But do we really need those C*O jobs and increased shareholder value? Probably keeping many of rocket science jobs could have been cheaper for taxpayers. But no one cares about that today, our children will be paying our debt, not us.
Like a big "pause updates" button they already have for years in the "advanced options" tab?
Lawyers are expensive only if _you_ have to pay for them. In English law (UK/EU) loser pays most lawyer's fees. This also disincentivizes businesses to start unwinnable cases in order to ruin other businesses with legal fees.
It's kind of dividends but without approval from majority of shareholders and bondholders. Company draws down credit line, shareholders receive cash, lawyers receive their %. Shareholders still have same amount of shares, win-win for everyone.
because they probably interacted with Joe in produce at some point recently
because I pulled a shift with him recently
It's more likely they are scared of their customers rather than Joe. Because Joe is just a person who contacted with contagious clients and they will never contact him again. They've probably already sanitized their store. But they will have to contact other clients who infected Joe and there is nothing they can do to avoid that.
9/11 is not a good example here. It allowed US to pass important PRISM-like PATRIOT acts without much opposition from US citizens, just in time for the rise of the Internet. It also provided a great narrative to start Iraq war and forced them to accept USD for their oil, strengthening the economy. So it clearly was in both government and (some) citizens interest for 9/11 to happen.
It's not easy to find any Coronavirus-related political narratives for China or any other country yet, because nothing has changed in China politics, but we will wait and see.
Have you jumped into a large old codebase with no access to its previous authors or maintainers?
Written by juniors, who doesn't really understand their codebase and writing ugly hacks all over the code? With code regularly failing at critical moments?
And you are suggesting to hire a bunch of new juniors who would finally fix this mess? I would rather fire half of the developers and hire new seniors instead who will refactor the codebase.
Maybe because they started testing early? Their first cases were in January and they screened everyone in airports since then [0], they performed 639606 tests with 4731 positives. [1][2]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-health-pneumonia-russi...
Why do they call them investors? People who haven't even briefly read financial filings for the company they are going to buy? They are called speculators, not investors.
Chrome itself (like Firefox and Safari), according to this article, doesn't send a persistent tracking UUID
According to the article:
Edge also sends the hardware UUID of the device to Microsoft and Yandex similarly transmits a hashed hardware identifier to back end servers.“
But Chrome also sends Chrome installation ID in X-Client-Data [0], which looks pretty much like hardware UUID.
A big part of that is trying to avoid the 'bust' part of a boom-bust cycle.
The thing is you can't avoid the bust part, you can only soften it in a way it is not harmful for (some) people.
US Treasury successfully completed today's 30Y auction. NY Fed was just worried that without $1.5T injection, the auction would have failed.
They're not as stupid as you might think.
Put options will only work in case your counterparty will have liquidity to pay you back.
In case of deep recession your counterparty can just go bankrupt and you would have to take losses (sell their assets at after-recession prices).
Those distances haven't been considered until real electrical shorts happened, safety standards are written in blood:
The regulation was introduced in 2009 following study of two fatal crashes: TWA 800 in 1996, in which an electrical short is believed to have caused a spark in the fuel tank and an explosion; and Swissair 111 in 1998, when an electrical short caused a fire in the cockpit.
Runaway Stabilizer / MCAS cases can be mitigated by the pilots (they can use cutoff switches and do manual trim), but not this kind of electrical short:
Furthermore, the electrical power in that wire could circumvent the cutoff switches in the cockpit that, in the event of such a stabilizer runaway, are used to kill electrical power to the tail. Theoretically, the pilots could be unable to shut it off.
Aren't EU trains electrified yet?
There is also an option to take Stockholm-Turku ferry (10 hours overnight) and Turku-Helsinki train (2 hours).
Given that planes, which rely on a class of specifically trained professionals with minimum hour requirements, still have issues with this from time to time
Most of this issues come from the fact that planes can't just stop in the middle of the road and wait for help, they have to land somewhere and do it fast enough not to be out of fuel.
Cars don't have to drive themselves to nearest service center when they encounter any hardware malfunction, they can just stop and unload passengers. Self-driving company would use another car to drive you to your destination (not even necessary self-driving car).
If you could only invest in one tech company, who would have invested in Apple/Amazon/Google instead of IBM?
IMHO there shouldn't be Apple/Amazon/Google/IBM companies as they are today. I want Google and other companies be splitted to AdWords, GoogleSearch, YouTube, Android, Waymo companies. And they should not use their dominant/monopolistic position in search/ads areas to get unfair advantage in other areas.
So you would have to choose your investment between Android/Apple/WinMobile OS, AdWords/AdMob ads, Waymo/Cruise cars, Google/Yahoo/DuckDuckGo search, YouTube/Vimeo videos.
This just isn't practical though. Apple/Google/Amazon/etc would have to be broken up for example.
So happened with Standard Oil and others after antitrust laws were introduced. Was their split bad? Or impractical?
Don't you as a customer want Google and other companies to be splitted to AdWords, GoogleSearch, YouTube, Android, Waymo companies?
hedging is good.
Is it? Article says that it can be bad for customers:
> José Azar, an economist at the University of Navarra in Barcelona, along with Martin Schmalz and Isabel Tecu, showed that airline ticket prices were 3% to 7% higher because big funds owned stakes in so many airlines.
do I have to sell my ownership in one of these companies?
No, company would have to split itself (create separated business entity) so you would have to sell your competing part of the company.
Such a change can also solve problem of companies using their dominant/monopolistic position in one business area to get unfair advantage in another.
As an investor I definitely want to own companies that compete because I don't know which one is going to prevail.
That's the problem article describes! Such behavior reduces competition and hurts customers:
> This line of research began with a 2014 paper about competition among U.S. airlines that quietly shook the fund industry and the antitrust world. José Azar, an economist at the University of Navarra in Barcelona, along with Martin Schmalz and Isabel Tecu, showed that airline ticket prices were 3% to 7% higher because big funds owned stakes in so many airlines.
Index funds “are great for investors,” says Elhauge, “but part of the reason they’re great for investors is exactly because of the anti-competitive effects.” Elhauge says the trusts of the late 19th century that gave rise to today’s antitrust laws also involved a form of common shareholding.
She might want Coca-Cola to take big risks to crush Pepsi, and invest capital in new products and markets to do so. An investor who holds both, on the other hand, would prefer that Coke and Pepsi avoid price wars.
So the way we can solve this problem is to outlaw shares ownership of competing companies? Seems like a fair solution.
So, at first we encouraged military companies mergers to save our money (back from 1980s?) and left only with a few monopolies, then suddenly there is only one company that can make our military chips? What a surprise! And now we have to pay premium to have them made on our soil? Same situation with non-military monopolies and near-monopolies.
it's possible for diligent researchers to reveal unpublicized policies through their research
It's possible to reveal __some__ policies (like trivial one with breastfeeding), but I think that reverse-engineering of non-trivial policies is really hard.
Like moving some type of content to the bottom of the feed for some category of users. It may not look like a ban, but who is gonna scroll to the bottom of the feed? Or 25% bias in news priorities of one political party over another for some users.
Their non-trivial policies may also change over time, so it would be hard to prove any of them. They had years to optimize their news feed.
And who will have time and knowledge to do statistics? With millions of eyeballs we still have tons of trivial bugs in open source software.
I haven't seen a reason to suspect that TikTok have been any more open about their moderation policies than Facebook or indeed any other social media platform have been.
I don't know any of big news players who have open editorial policy, but TikTok is new in the industry and I think they don't have knowledge and technologies to develop non-trivial policies like Facebook, Twitter, NYT or any other big player.
More generally, is there anything on TikTok which is banned by Facebook?
That's wrong question. It usually doesn't matter what is banned, but what is "shadow-banned" really matters.
You can't see what is shadow-banned on Facebook because they don't tell us how they do moderation on their news feed.
or your central bank is injecting money into the economy and your "savings" is being inflated away
This classical macroeconomic principle does not work any more [0]. Today inflation is not directly related to central bank actions.
[0] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/10/10/inflatio...
They can just suspend your account. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21247759
entire exchange volume is based on me and my friend trading a single share back and forth, everything will still work
You are talking like such a market is extremely liquid (there are enough shares for everyone). I think when a third person enters such a market your example breaks apart. Now you have one person who constantly wants to buy a stock but is unable to do so. Because you and your friend trade at a fair price and index fund does nothing. So he have to buy at an unfair price and rises his bid until index funds kicks in the game.
About Us [0] on webarchive from the same date is still relevant:
YouTube is the first online community site that allows members to post and share personal videos.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20050428171556/http://www.youtub...