I always thought it was clear that FTX would have been fine (even with all of the not-so-legal activity going on), as long as their investments made money. None of this would have come to light, and the Bahama headquarters would still be chugging along. It just happened that they couldn't cover their investments for too long. As it turns out -- once some time passed -- we find out they would have been fine.

In 2021, 8.3% of US households owned zero vehicles. 32.5% of US households owned 1 vehicle. 37.1% of US households owned 2 vehicles. 22.1% of US households owned 3 or more vehicles.

> PG&E wants this, nobody else does. I want this, and I am not related to PG&E. Paying solar customers at full residential rates helps the residential customers by over-paying them forever, but provides no incentive for the utility. This is an unsustainable arrangement. Also, utilities are typically not set up for residential customers to contribute to the grid. The utility should upgrade their equipment for zero cost? Why would the utility pay the full residential rate, 2x to 4x their cost for wholesale electricity, for the random times when a customer is producing a little extra electricity? Whether it changes now or later, this will need to change. Now if a new installation was paid full residential rates for power sent back to the utility for a couple of years -- that makes more sense. It helps pay down the cost of the solar installation, and provides an incentive to initially add the installation. But over paying a residential customer for excess power unfairly skews the benefit for adding solar. Come up with a system that's fair to all parties, and works in the long-term.

I see driving from El Paso, TX to LA is 802 miles; El Paso, TX to Houston is 746 miles. Houston appears to be a little closer to El Paso than LA.

First of all, this is not news that matters. Second -- why do these UBI articles all talk about how wonderful it would be to have free money (the easy part), and don't talk about where this magical free money would come from (the hard part)? This is little more than dreaming; like planning how you will spend a the money from winning the lottery, without understanding how to win the lottery.

This business plan is clearly based on following directions from a GPS.
The first thing a GPS says:

Acquiring satellites...

For the record -- right now US dollars are worth more than Canadian. 1.00 USD = 1.01230 CAD

News for nerds. Resumes that matter.

I have rolled through more stop signs than most. I passed my time with moral relativism, until work sent me to Europe for a couple weeks with a rental car (circa 1998). During those two weeks, I never rolled through a stop sign -- because where it made sense, they put up Yield signs. Where it made sense, there are Stop signs. I rolled through the Yields, I stopped at the Stops. It made so much sense while I was there. And back in the USA, it still frustrates me that we love our Stop signs, and can't trust our population with Yield signs.

Last time I tried Foxit -- it would not let you select text and copy it, so the text can be copied into another app. Copying text was a premium feature (cue the advertising for the $$ upgrade). Foxit is smaller and faster. I loved Foxit up to that point, but absent that feature I went right back to Adobe Acrobat.

So that's profitable, as in they bring in more revenue than expenses.
But is it a reasonable profit for a company worth $2.9B?

From the historical-perspective dept.
I keep track of CPU and graphics card prices from pricewatch.com, for no-good-reason.
slashdot does not like my long lists (too few characters per line) so here are the abbreviated lists which keep the most expensive options.
Here are my scrapes from ~6 years ago:

Sep 16, 2003 List of Graphics Cards
$384 - Fire GL Z1 128mb
$696 - Fire GL X1 256mb
$529 - Fire GL X1 128mb
$469 RADEON 9800 Pro Ultimate
$373 - RADEON 9800 Pro Ultimate 128
$417 - RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB
$294 - RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB
$368 - RADEON 9800 All-In-Wonder Pro
$192 - RADEON 9800 128MB
$299 - RADEON 9700 Pro Ultimate
$266 - RADEON 9700 Pro
$389 - GeForce FX 5900 256MB
$235 - GeForce FX 5900 128MB
$251 - GeForce FX 5800 128MB


6/16/2003 List of CPUs:
$467 - Xeon 2.8GHz 533FSB
$315 - Xeon 2.66GHz 533FSB
$235 - Xeon 2.4GHz 533FSB
$236 - Xeon 2.0GHz 533FSB
$839 - Opteron 244
$708 - Opteron 242
$280 - Opteron 240
$451 - Athlon XP 3200
$440 - Athlon XP 3200 400
$249 - Athlon XP 3000
$294 - Athlon XP 3000 400
$282 - Athlon MP 2800
$205 - Athlon MP 2600
$158 - Athlon MP 2400
$127 - Athlon MP 2200
$199 - Athlon MP 2100
$122 - Athlon MP 2000
$147 - Athlon MP 1900
$149 - Athlon MP 1800
$115 - Athlon MP 1600
$108 - Athlon MP 1500

imagemagick can also compare two images, and tell you how different they are. That is -- quantify the differences by returning a floating point number or two (PSNR, RMSE) in a way that a more-compressed JPEG image will return a correspondingly different floating point value. I know the question concerns two JPEG-compressed images, but if you do have an original image -- and you want to test which is closest to the original, ImageMagick can do that. Use the ImageMagick compare function.
See http://www.imagemagick.org/script/compare.php

Also, [[www.gimp.org]] is able to look at an image and approximate what JPEG compression quality setting was used, and use that same quality setting to save an output JPEG copy of the image. So -- they have some algorithm inside of their application which takes an image and returns (a good guess of) the corresponding jpeg quality value.
Of course, this does not help you if the image was saved with a lousy JPEG quality value, like 10/100, and later saved at a much higher value, like 98/100. Since the algorithm only sees the last image, it would tell you the quality value is 98/100, even though the contents of the image would indicate the results of 10/100 compression, because of multi-generational lossy compression.