"Kid". Thanks.

It's under the MIT license. It's available to anyone. Please go to github and read. I'm not going to touch your other tirade part of the comment.

@Shanghaibill, it's under the MIT license. Do whatever you want with it. We inlcuded the 'schools and churches' part to generate interest, for sure. But it _is_ open source.

MS is all in on ARM⦠Theyâ(TM)ve released an ARM64 native Office and Edge. Windows 11 has an x64 emulator in ARM with wicked performance to cover the gaps in the app space. The latest Surface offers the same Surface branded laptop with ARM chips (unlike the Pro X which stood out). Theyâ(TM)ve also brought ARM into Azure.

Worlds first what? https://azure.microsoft.com/en...

I think the difference is that the source material in Sin City was also for adults. With the exception of quasi-canonical stuff like the Injustice games, ZSJL is much more violent than most of the original source material.

"Sadly Rails documentation doesn't warn you about this pitfall, but if you know anything at all about using SQL databases in web applications, you'd have heard of SQL injection, and it's not hard to come across warnings that find_by_sql method is not safe," Dmitry Borodaenko, a former production engineer at Facebook who brought the commit to my attention wrote in an email. "It is not 100% confirmed that this is the vulnerability that was used in the Gab data breach, but it definitely could have been, and this code change is reverted in the most recent commit that was present in their GitLab repository before they took it offline." Ironically, Fosco in 2012 warned fellow programmers to use parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection vulnerabilities.

So, this was the vulnerability, unless maybe it wasn't the vulnerability, because we don't know.

Also, Rails documentation absolutely does warn you about the ">pitfalls of using find_by_sql indiscriminately:

Ruby on Rails has a built-in filter for special SQL characters, which will escape ' , " , NULL character, and line breaks. Using Model.find(id) or Model.find_by_some thing(something) automatically applies this countermeasure. But in SQL fragments, especially in conditions fragments (where("...")), the connection.execute() or Model.find_by_sql() methods, it has to be applied manually.

I don't understand that to be the case. They take on the trades on T+0, do nothing until T+2, then do their thing. If the hurricane hits, it would cause the same issues today, only two days later.

RH very specifically said that they allowed their customers to trade out of existing positions. They were just not allowed to buy more shares.

As to "are you a customer if you pay no fees?", the answer in this case is absolutely yes. First of all, RH offer all kinds of services that do come with a fee, for instance various ways in which they extend credit to their customers. Second, their business is like a travel agent. You pay nothing upfront to the travel agent, but they get some kickback from trips or bookings they make. (In some cases some travel agents do charge fees, but often they don't, so pretty much exactly like RH.)

This is a good question. The US switched from T+3 to T+2 in 2017. For the life of me, I can't understand why they didn't go directly to T+0 when they were making the change anyway. However, do note that this wouldn't have solved the issue. Every clearing member, including RH, would still be expected to pledge collateral to the clearing house (DTC in this case). But sure, the collateral requirements would probably drop a bit, and maybe they would have dropped enough so that RH would have been able to meet them. Probably not, though; they would just have had less working capital to start with, in all likelihood.

This is just factually wrong on every level. Robinhood isn't a bank, they are a broker. They also act as their own clearer. As such they have some amounts of money to post collateral to the clearing houses that settle the trades their users execute through them. When GME and other meme stocks exploded, both the volatility and the price exploded. This meant that RH had to post significantly higher amounts of capital than they usually have to do. More money than they had, in fact, so they had to limit trading in order to reduce their collateral demands from DTC. Yes, obviously they were underfunded. That was clearly bad. But it wasn't illegal or, if you stop to think about it for five seconds, very strange. Most small brokers don't have an extra billion dollars just lying around.

He's Bulgarian (or Bulgarian-American.) It should take you roughly five seconds to find that out.

Why would it be good for the sciences? Men went to the moon a bunch of times already. What is there left to learn from doing it again? Mars, sure.

I wouldn't say it will never catch on. Big tech firms are notorious for their heavy use of data to make decisions, to the extent that they collect so much data it's turned into a PR problem for them. There was the famous "50 shades of blue" rant by an ex-Google designer some years ago where he lamented that visual design was put through measurement rather than managers approving redesigns based on their personal perceptions.

Arguably one reason tech firms dominate is that they use evidence based management more frequently than other kinds of firms.