usefulcat

A long time ago (maybe 2008-ish?) I saw a video called “Money is Debt”. Now I won’t claim that it’s 100% right about everything, but as I recall it was right about a lot of things, and what it did for me is to fundamentally change and greatly expand my understanding of banks and the financial system.

Notice how for both "search" and "everything else" there's a peak at almost every year boundary. Trying to juice the EOY numbers, I guess?

> and almost begin to pinch zoom something

I dislike fingerprints too much to feel that temptation, but when using a phone I do feel a kind of dread every time I want to select some text or precisely position a cursor.

> Or, more appropriately, on an election's notice.

That depends entirely on the degree to which those in power will respect the results of an election.

Oh don’t worry, a company representative will definitely be standing next to you as you’re walked out the door.

I mean, two out of three isn’t bad, right?

I dunno, as someone who’s lived their entire life in the southern US this sounds really pedantic. At best.

Also, is it just me or does that Wikipedia entry have zero citations? I thought Wikipedia was allergic to citation-free claims..

I'm well aware of that. I was speculating that the prosecutor may think that they could prevail vs a court appointed lawyer.

Don't they also hate to lose though? This seems an unlikely case for a prosecutor to win. If it were a civil case, sure, the standard is much lower there, but for a criminal case the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I guess they could be gambling that she can't afford a good lawyer; many people can't.

low pay (for tech) + poor working conditions (for tech) = more turnover

ETA: That was a bit terse. My point was simply that it's more difficult to do institutional knowledge transfer when turnover is high, which may be a problem in the games industry.

Can they appeal it?

According to Yahoo Finance it was around $59 at that time, not $100+.

> $140 billion if you include total financial cost to BP.

That's more than their current market cap ($127B), and the stock price right now is not that far from where it was just before the spill ($49 now, around $59 just prior to the spill).

I'm just curious how that was accomplished, given that it would not have been a great time for them to be borrowing or issuing new shares, for obvious reasons. Maybe if it was spread out over like 10 years it could be more doable, but still that seems like a lot.

A highly profitable company can be poorly run and still survive exactly because there is so much more margin for error than for a company which is barely profitable (or worse).

Granted, that kind of situation is unlikely to continue indefinitely, but it certainly can happen.

> even Republicans are beginning to wonder what dirt Putin has on Trump.

What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?

Not trolling or rhetorical; that's a completely sincere question. Even if something "bad" were to surface, his supporters would simply deny it and/or ignore it, same as they've done for all the other things he's done that are already known.

You can pretty much divide American voters into two camps right now: the ones who loathe him and the ones who DGAF (non-voting voters being in the latter category).