mantasm

This is not true. Green cards are distributed across countries respecting the 7% limit, but the remaining green cards are distributed to those in the backlog.

This depends on the state, e.g. in California:

"Strategic default works in California because this is a "non-recourse" state. Unlike in many states, a mortgage lender in California has only one type of legal recourse in the event that a borrower defaults on a loan: to foreclose on the property. All that the bank can do is repossess your house; they cannot sue you in court to recover payment for the deficiency, which is the difference between the outstanding loan balance and the amount that the bank recovers by selling the home in a foreclosure auction. Strategic default has the advantage that in many cases it allows the homeowner to remain in the property for an extended period because the process of foreclosure often takes a considerable amount of time. During this period, you can save the money you would normally be spending on your mortgage and use it to pay down other debts."

https://www.sandiegolegalpros.com/other-practice-areas/forec....

The numbers at the bottom of the check are all that someone needs to initiate an ACH transfer out of your account!

The company becomes equally less valuable after a buyback.

Consider a company with value of $1000, with 100 shares outstanding. Each share is $10. Buying back 10 shares, the company spent $100, so the company is now worth $900 and has 90 shares outstanding. Each share is still $10.

This is the basic model that shows share price should be unaffected by buybacks, but there are other effects. The buyback could signal to investors that the company is unlikely to be inefficient with capital, so investors would value the company at $910 instead of $900.

Alternatively, in a demand/supply model of shares, the buybacks could have exhausted some of the supply of shares, so the valuation for the company settled on by the rest of the market is higher.

There's no clear answer here, but reality is probably somewhere between these models.

It's a little more complicated than that.

Say a company is worth $1000, and has 100 shares outstanding, for a share price of $10.

They can pay a dividend of $100, reducing their value to $900 (share price of $9) and paying out $1 per share to shareholders. In the end, the shareholders still have $10 of value per share, but some was forcibly liquidated!

Alternatively, the company can do a stock buyback of 10% of their shares. They spend $100 destroying 10 shares. The company is now worth $900 and there are 90 shares outstanding - investors still have $10 worth of value, whether they sold their shares or not.

In the end, no value is created in either scenario - capital is just returned to shareholders.

This is still a simplification because: 1. Stock prices often rise on the announcement of new dividends/share repurchases for similar reasons. It's a positive signal to investors that either of these things will happen, and affects their valuation of the firm. 2. Investors like capital-efficient businesses, and either of these methods of returning capital can actually create value for investors.

Yes!

Funnily enough, the fact that equity grants are "options" to purchase stock at a strike price less than the real share price is much less valuable than the optionality you describe of continuing working to earn the rest of a stock grant after more information is known.

Unfortunately I think it's very hard to pin a value on the optionality to continue working, and I haven't seen anyone mention it when considering joining a startup over a larger company.

Interestingly enough, you don't need Apple's support to do that: https://github.com/st3fan/dovecot-xaps-daemon.

Apple didn't have to build an API for them, they simply provided documentation for how to use the existing API.

My interpretation is that "O(...)" informally means "Theta(...) in the average/amortized case". In the average case, Quicksort is Theta(n log n).

I was about to correct you until I realized you used big-O instead of big-theta notation.

Informally we tend to use big-O to mean big-theta which only adds to the confusion.

I would argue it's not the difference in wealth, but the cost of living, that entices these people to move to poorer areas.

The greater difference in wealth may in fact hold them back, for fear of criminals with even less to lose than the criminals in their home country.

How would you implement analog parity? Parity doesn't translate well as a concept into the analog space.

You can take an analog signal and "quantize" it into sixteen possible values so that you can apply a parity algorithm that returns sensible results and doesn't fail with expected noise, but you're digitizing the signal.

Am I the only one who misread this as an API that returns the number of shares outstanding in TWTR?

I wouldn't segregate the general approaches to life in that sense.

Providing different prices to different groups of people does not result in "everyone winning". It's a classical example of market segmentation, price based on the average ability to pay of someone who holds the currency. It entirely benefits the airliner, and their profits, to be able to do so.

The "hidden city" tickets? A cheaper ticket to go from A->B->C than A->B is a deadweight loss in the market (assuming competitive markets). Prices are not reflecting costs, and airlines again are segmenting based on ability to pay.

Go made choices that makes it a good language to be compiled to. Compilation-wise: it's incredibly fast and compiles to static machine binaries. Runtime-wise: it has great concurrency and communication primitives.

class="two-thirds columns" enforces a strong coupling between the HTML and how it is presented.

To change how wide a column is, you change its class. To change how wide an image is, you go into the CSS. To change how wide a column's border is, you go to the CSS. Doesn't changing the class seem a little out of place?

In theoretical terms, the class is semantically the category to which the component belongs. a <section class="cart"> is perfectly reasonable, whereas <div class="two-thirds columns"> is not. The <div> and it's children are not tied to the notion of how wide the div is. The fact that a section has class "cart" is important in understanding it's children.

It's very doable, but Sass or similar is necessary.

For example: http://neat.bourbon.io/

I'm surprised at the lack of semantic meaning in most popular grid frameworks.

Years ago, we moved away from layout with tables because <table><tr> is a horrible way to separate presentation from content but <div class="two-thirds columns"> is just as bad.

Properly implemented crypto takes a constant number of instructions to encrypt/decrypt, regardless of key, plaintext, etc.

Time to sleep() would vary across processors, os-es, and even load (!), so it's not exactly a workable solution. Not to mention it would be grossly inefficient (Context switch on every crypto primitive? No thanks).

http://www.mycareercity.com/defaultC.aspx is launching pretty soon (i.e. within a week). They're aimed at more junior-level developers I think.