I don't think they literally meant at the same exact time. I believe they meant in the same day, or at least in the same dispatch. Fixed one at a time, then on to the next.

No, there is no AI bubble. A bubble happens when valuations (stock prices) wildly exceed revenue - that happened during the dot.com bubble - companies with *no revenue whatsoever* were valued to the moon. And no one seemed to notice or care.

Todays situation with AI is not that. Revenue is massive, is growing wildly, and stock valuations are really not overextended - given the reasonable estimates of future growth for the companies. There is a huge amount of money being used to build out more AI, but that is largely coming from money the companies *already made*. Expect that to keep going for 2-5 more years, and end up with some excess capacity (similar to the build-out of the railroads back in the day [sigh - good times]) - there is always over-building.

We have had a recent bubble- but that was in quantum computing. Wild valuations on companies with no revenue to speak of - and that basically peaked and popped in November.

But if the whole concept of a confrontational negotiation over pay makes you feel queasy, you can do what I have done in the past.

Hand them your current pay-stub. Do NOT let them keep it, or copy it - I hope that goes without saying.

Then just say "Here's what I make now. Make me want to come here."

Worked pretty well.

The release date really isn't the right question to ask. The right question is - when was the last time someone bought a copy of this game expecting to be able to play it? Not every user bought theirs 10 years ago. If I bought mine last month I'd be pretty incensed.

If the company stopped selling it and removed all copies from stores 5 years ago, expecting to end of life it this year, that's one thing. If they have been continually offering it for sale and pull the plug on everyone arbitrarily, that's quite another.

If the latter is the case (NPI), then I think having a court decide is appropriate.

I'm an old man. I yell at systemd.

Agreed - especially in the area of autos. My wife's car is about where I think the sweet spot is. It has lane assist, with auto steering to stay in lane, and keeps a selectable min distance from the car in front. That's it. I only use it on the highway. And I think that is a great compromise - you have to keep your hands on the wheel, you don't have to really do much - you are just kind of going along with the car. But you are still there to take over if needed. And I disengage ["manual override engaged!"] if traffic gets really heavy, I enter a work zone, etc. Makes long trips a lot less tiring.

Seems about right to me.

The founding fathers knew English pretty well. If that had been their intent, the Second would have read:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [members of said Militia] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Since it does NOT say that, and says that Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, that is what they meant.

To address some of the other ideas you included - several countries require their armed forces, and equivalent to National Guard, to indeed keep their weapons at their homes.

And at the time the Amendment was written, private citizens owned cannons, and even entire small warships. There was no talk of limiting it to small arms (muskets) - because the idea of that seemed ludicrous at the time.

Please do some research - I am disappointed at the lack of perspective of someone with such a low UID. Sad!

No, it actually is illegal. Congressional approval is given through legislation. Legislation == written laws. No approval == no law allowing it == illegal.

Well, from what I've done so far with trading stocks and options (have NOT gotten into futures) here is my best guess for what happened.

The fake crop reports fed to the brothers called for an absolutely abysmal outlook for oranges - the crop was going to be devastated.

So, they took their money and their margins (I have a brokerage account with a margin - an amount the brokerage will lend me to make trades with. If the stocks, options, or futures you bought with margin do badly enough, the brokerage sends you a margin call - you need to add money to keep the losing bets going. If you can't or won't add more money, they force-sell what they need to in order to balance out the books. I have margin, but have avoided using it) and bought up every futures contract the could - using cash, margin (and since they had chairs on the brokerage's board, they may have had an insane amount - or almost limitless amount - of margin) and whatever other resource they had. Since they "knew" those futures were going to be worth a ton once the report was made public.

Some saw what the brothers were doing and started buying too - driving the prices up further.

Eddie and Dan waited until the frenzy had driven up prices to crazy levels and then sold all the futures they had bought up *the day before* - also with whatever amount of leverage they had. Very short term options on the futures would let them control a huge amount of "shares" for surprisingly little money, so what they had to work with went a long way. They just waited until prices reached, say, 10x what they started the day with, then sold all they had at, say, 9x. Unloading it all in a heartbeat for a huge profit.

The real report comes out, and it is the opposite of the fake one - there will be a huge bumper crop of oranges - and futures are now really worth next to nothing.

Futures prices plunge, as everyone who followed the brothers tries to unload the overpriced futures at once. They cannot sell off enough, for enough, fast enough, and get the dreaded margin call - with the results shown in the movie.

I'm sure there was originally a lot of explanation of what was actually going on and why, but all of it was cut to make the movie more enjoyable - if more mysterious.

It's a byproduct of extracting natural gas, which Qatar also supplies in large quantities. Instead of just the feedstock, they decided to refine the helium themselves and sell the end product (for more profits). Seems pretty reasonable overall, but I agree - not obvious.

"How many times does review actually catch bugs?"

Mostly it depends on 2 things:

1) How well the reviewers know the codebase and what it is trying to accomplish, in detail.

2) The amount of stuff that is being reviewed( document, code, system design, use cases, etc.) at one time.
      Can you review 10 lines of code and find all the bugs? Very likely.
      Can you review 1,000,000 lines of code at once and find the bugs? Not a chance.
      Can you review 1,000 lines of code and find the bugs? Maybe.

      We try to keep reviews to 100-200 lines of code. Not always practical, given other constraints (time, budget, availability, relative priorities, etc.), but in small chunks like that, it's pretty effective.

You had me at pastel gradients.

That is just what an undercover alien lizard assassin would say. Stay right there "mjwx" - a tactical team is inbound to collect you now.

Lifetime of the sensor. The sensor can be embedded in any number of tires (mine are swapped back and forth from summer to winter tires twice a year).

Remember, they have a lifespan though - about 10 years, give or take. Then you need a new set of sensors as the batteries are not (apparently) replaceable.

So basically the explosion at the heart of a supernova produces light and neutrinos together. But the light itself is retarded while within the star, giving the neutrinos a several hour head start. "really cool" indeed [I see what you did there].

One thing to keep in mind is that once light escapes the star, both the light wavefront and the neutrino wavefront propagate at lightspeed. So the head start will be independent of the distance to the exploding supernova.

I hope the guys in Antarctica are on the "pager system" I read about here earlier.