pantaloons

I worked on Windows back in 2014, probably the most surprising thing joining there out of college was looking through the bug database. Every issue that gets complained about online -- and many more -- are in there, and have been for a long time, marked WONTFIX due to a potential compatibility break, lack of priority, or some other policy reason.

I don't know if anyone even owned Notepad or any other older inbox apps like the command prompt, but the issues were pretty well understood and WONTFIXed. Single undo, unicode support, unix LF support, etc, etc.

For Notepad a frustrated engineer had produced a change-set to fix all of them, and it had sat there attached to the bug for some time. It would surface on internal mail threads from time to time as a joke or a bitter reflection on bureaucracy, and if I recall a VP once chimed in to say they had looked at it, and sadly none of it could be committed due to backwards compatibility issues.

Of course the compat issues were real (you could view reports on which obscure apps hooked into this or that internal code of cmd.exe or Notepad and would break), but I always though they served as a nice justification for whichever investments were being made at the time: certainly not Notepad.

It's nice to see the wind change on that, even if it took a decade or two.

The fund would not have such a simple construction - but you can build a simple tail risk strategy with options. Buy deeply out of the money puts on SPX and periodically roll them. You are now betting on a tail risk wiping out the market (although paying a continuous premium to do so).

In your written testimony, the goals for privacy regulation seem quite watered down from past proposals of yours like prohibiting behavioral ad targeting, or eliminating data brokers altogether.

Does this represent a shift in what you think is reasonable, or achievable, or just language tailored for the audience?

Of course, if this technology was able to price securities better than the market (the fundamental job of almost every market participant), it would be printing money and they would not release it.

This is not the secret sauce, but probably an implementation of a set of standard well known pricing and risk models. That's still useful, and can be expensive to develop, so thanks Goldman.

The only viable solution is #4. So long as Facebook can make money by targeting specific groups or behavioral features, their algorithms and advertisers will find facsimiles for protected groups, the vulnerable, children, or Nazis since this optimizes revenue and engagement in dramatic ways. Even the most well-intentioned actor -- and Facebook is very far from that -- could not win this self-imposed game a whack-a-mole.

One alternative to shutting off targeting altogether would be switching from a blacklist to a whitelist approach, where regulators provide the set of features or groups that are allowed to be targeted.

This is largely due to Amazon stock appreciation. Amazon does not pay senior engineers $400K, let alone $500K. In FAANG, a typical non-promotion raise is 5-8%.

The author could probably have been a bit more specific and noted that his income was actually quite likely to go down for the next several years, but it wouldn't have made for such a compelling post.

This is standard practice, the system compositor has a fast path for video decoding and rendering. The fast path will not be taken when software composition is needed (eg, something is overlaid or blended).

If you’re asking why they didn’t think to design the fast path to deal with Byzantine faults, it’s probably because why the hell should they?

I graduated six years ago, have worked at Microsoft and Dropbox, and anecdotally around a quarter of my friends at either of them wouldn't work at Facebook now. Parent comment is not obviously wrong, and you shouldn't assume bad faith.

Your last submission was titled "We're lucky Mark Zuckerberg is in charge" and around half your comment history is devoted to defending Facebook. At least if you're going to question someones motives, you should state yours.

The company will be put into receivership when it can no longer meet capital requirements imposed by regulators, this may not be a company breaking event - the receivership proceedings will determine if the insured and creditors are best served by liquidation, conservancy, or rehabilitation.

Assuming a somewhat rational market, a market cap above zero means that the present value of future cash flows is greater than (or equal to) the debts owed. In practice this means the company can borrow against those cash flows, and continue to meet capital requirements - avoiding potential liquidation.

The Windows runtime is backwards compatible, so there are no breaking changes in WinMD files. You should be able to just generate a module for the latest available version of Windows.WinMD.

Attempting to call functions which don't exist on the OS you are using should just result in E_NOINTERFACE being surfaced by this projection.

Split the transaction in YNAB, send your part to the correct category "Dining", and itemize owed amounts per person into another category "Loaned Money". It's easy to track if "Loaned Money" has a positive balance, and you don't screw up the budget for your Dining category.

If reminding customers that they are actually making recurring payments to a company causes that company to go out of business, I don't think we need to shed any tears.