I've heard this before, but what advantage does the loan have? Doesn't the CEO still pay just as much tax when he/she sells the stock to pay down the loan? Is it just to allow the stock a chance to appreciate?
2,299 karma · joined September 28, 2017
This is so detached from reality. It would wipe out probably 99% of listings from people not doing it professionally.
That's a pretty ridiculous assertion when you consider how many people benefit from these companies' products/services. (Look at how many people like Apple products.) Subsequently, they will defend the companies that they think are getting unfair treatment.
As someone who had siblings that required various visits to the hospital for emergency things, using an ambulance each time would have paid for a couple of new cars.
Most healthcare isn't going to cover the use of an ambulance for a broken arm or a bunch of marbles up the nose and waiting for (and using) an Uber/Lyft in these scenarios is also pretty bad.
Well then you are well-off. Most people can't swing 5 nights in a high CoL city without months and months of saving. Offering to pay for someone to stay in a hotel creates an extremely bad dynamic when the receiver couldn't easily afford that on their own.
>he idea that it's usually a cheaper option to pay for the occasional hotel than to specifically purchase a larger house with rooms you rarely use.
Yep, but the important distinction is that a hotel room isn't equivalent because it's a very easily measurable monetary burden on the host.
Throttled is still unlimited in the same way as any other connection. Your connection is always throttled, it's just a question if there are two different speeds with the latter triggering after a particular threshold.
This statement doesn't really make sense. If programmers spent the time to optimize everything instead of gluing a bunch of inefficient libraries together, software would cost even more than it does now. So that's even higher salaries because there is even more business competition for the same pool of available programmer hours in the workforce (and that doesn't even take into account the fact that you would wipe out 90% of the programming workforce if writing assembly is required).
Moore's law means that you can afford inefficient code, so it's taking money from programmers and keeping it in the businesses that would have originally had to pay for a hand-tuned piece of code.
Developing a different getUser API for 20 different caller types does not scale.
This is frequently called property level authorization or field level authorization.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30002351/enforcing-prope...
https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=security_data_acc...
You're just wording it in an indirect way to make it seem like something different. It's not "Using API key to determine what kind of information is returned", it's "hiding sensitive fields based on permissions".
However, in our field you end up with people who have sat around in their same SWE job at DuPont/Lockheed or some other boomer company for 10 years and are making $80k while new grads are hitting $150k+ TC going into Google and 7 years experienced engineers can hit $450k TC at the big tech companies.
A tech company with a good moat can easily extract millions in value out of the work of SWEs building more crap for them. That's why they are willing to compete for competent engineers. If they didn't bring in that kind of cash, the companies just wouldn't pay for it, period.
Employees talking money with each other has zero bearing on what a company is willing to offer. I worked at a hotel in high school and everyone knew the hourly pay of every position in the hotel. It didn't get us raises.
Also, if they are Canadian they might get their goose feathers extra ruffled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineer#Canada
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_A... 2. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73143/is-the-f-...
You're not really in "violent agreement" when you're just agreeing with him from the outset.
"interesting and novel" in academia currently translates to "incremental improvements on the status quo". The article directly talks about an example of not being able to do anything too novel because there was no journal to review it.
Something like "GET /reservation/<id>" would rarely require you to specified the 50 fields that you would like included in the response. Many offer fields to explicitly filter for specific things, but the default is almost always to return the full object as much as the caller is allowed to see.
Time before using computers for business was terrible with much less transparency (no Googling prices, etc). Paperwork got lost all of the time. Companies could easily bury things, etc.
Direct bans for things so heavily used are going to have extreme unintended consequences. Are we willing to put that much immediate demand on things like tin and aluminum (cans, food cases, etc) that will drive up energy consumption and CO2 emissions? It's not clear that's a win for the environment.
We screwed up over-preventing fires during the last 100 years and built up a huge tinder box.
This isn't correct. If investors thing Nvidia overpaid, its share price will decline. There are many examples of acquiring companies losing significant value on announcements to buy other companies even in pure stock deals.
"Because it's pretty" is it. 99% of people don't care about text being a data mining source.
This is a little dramatic. There are no companies that qualify for the size of "undermining the whole system".