"standing" is a made-up concept with a fairly short history. Remember how we look back at the early part of the 20th century as being filled with virtuous people at every level of industry and govt? me neither:
The modern U.S. doctrine of standing traces back to mid-20th-century Supreme Court cases that crystallized the “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability triad, but its roots lie in early 20th-century rulings such as Fairchild v. Hughes (1920) that first linked federal judicial power to a plaintiff’s concrete injury.
>The word 'crispy', in my world, has no business applying to pancakes
i won't eat pancakes that are not crispy, or that were but were stacked up steaming in a pile till there were enough to serve to everybody at once: nope.
pancakes should be served individually as soon as they come out of the pan, round robin till nobody wants any more.
Interesting, I didn’t think of that. Growing up in Brazil, soccer was essentially the only sport boys played, at every opportunity.
In the absence of a ball, we’d dislodge the plastic ball from a roll on deodorant packaging and play with that, or a table football ball (which hurt a lot).
Then - in my late teens - studying in the UK football (soccer) was also predominant, played during breaks etc.
My point being that the US is along other large nations such as India, China which culturally favour other games/sports.
Contrast these nations with Uruguay for example, tiny country… has won the World Cup. I do not know this, but I’d hazard a guess that soccer is THE game in the streets of Uruguay.
Yup. For many years in DC just about the only people that went to DC United games were Latinos. They are still the dominant supporters of professional US soccer I think.
I had a surreal experience one day after work. I lived on a cul de sac and it was common to have kids play baseball or kickball in the summer. There was one Indian family on the street and the eldest boy had convinced them to try cricket that day. Heard him yelling “Bowl it! Bowl it!” So yeah, immigrants add a lot to the US including sports.
CP/M was written to do what DEC's minicomputers did with PIP, the peripheral interchange program was designed to create a way for programs to interact with devices (printers, console, modem, etc.) in a generalized generic way. BASIC didn't do anything like that, it was designed to create the BASIC virtual machine and in order to do I?O you would need to know what type of device you were talking to and follow its control language, exactly what CP/M was trying to eliminate. The people sharing Digital minicomputers would be attracted to running on a microcomputer all to themselves, but the software they would want to bring was not written in BASIC.
>S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
S&P 500 rejects MPT when it decides not to issue a waiver from its ordinary rules which require at least a year long track record, a rule that is clearly a throwback to slower days when companies would invariably grow their way to be among the largest 500, and not IPO at that size. This old fashioned view throws a monkey wrench into the universally recommended, least-risk MPT/CAPM investment strategy of diversification because investors will need to individually buy these individual stocks to balance their ETF portfolios to reduce their overall risk, and then sell these stocks when they get added to the indices, incurring capital gains taxes that they wouldn't otherwise pay.
You raise an interesting point. What about the rules change regarding the free float made for SpaceX? That was something I considered a bigger problem than the express listings, and for me the express listings kinda got tainted by association with that.
There is economic inefficiency in many aspects of real world markets, so while a perfect world might be better, we don't have access to that. The problem with "restricted" float is that all the demand for investment (in that company, in that sector) cannot be met except by price inflation. But the market will respond by setting a market price for the investment and a market weight for that investment, and we must assume that includes skepticism and risk of dilution factored in, and from that point MPT says you want that weight in your portfolio, even though there might hypothetically be more desireable scenarios that are not available.
(now, large growing companies need public investment in order to grow, so it might be said that there is some value to regulations as a cudgel, "no access to public capital markets if you don't open yourselves up more," but again, we can still rely on market pricing once decisions like that are made)
NVIDIA is something like 8% of the S&P 500, and these companies are projected to be higher: you can't ignore sectors like that if you believe in diversification to squelch unrewarded risk
If you try to buy more shares than are available, then price will go to infinity which is clearly disastrous. That's in theory. But maybe it wasn't that bad in this particular situation?
you know how in third grade you have these confusing feelings about a girl and it's upsetting and you pretend you hate her and tease her etc? people here are in love with AI, it's that simple. can't stop talking about it. go ahead and deny it, that will just convince us more.
>Many tasks involve a collection of directories, and tabs can be ideal for reducing demand for screen space.
double pane with tabs would be handy so you could inspect or move files between two tabs. also, i'd really love two pane: filesystem and content viewer
That would actually be a great feature. Opening two file browsers to move stuff around is a really common workflow. Although with current trends we might instead get a chat bot prompt “tell me how you feel about where you want your files to be”
The modern U.S. doctrine of standing traces back to mid-20th-century Supreme Court cases that crystallized the “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability triad, but its roots lie in early 20th-century rulings such as Fairchild v. Hughes (1920) that first linked federal judicial power to a plaintiff’s concrete injury.
reply