> Preventing data being attached to an error forces more clear and precise errors.
Okay maybe theorically, but in the real world I would like to have the filename on a "file not found", an address on a "connection timeout", a retry count on a "too many failures", etc.
But also in the real world I may not be interested in any error information for the library I’m using. I’d like to be able to pass a null for the error information structure and have the compile optimize away everything related to tracking and storing error information.
I’d like my parser library to be able to give me the exact file, line and column number an error occurred. But I’d also like to use the library in a “just give me an error if something failed, I don’t really care why” mode.
Last decade, some companies (that had more money that they knew what to do with) used that money to buy shares back. This decade, this company (that has more money that they know what to do with) invests in either "AI" or "AI datacenter" companies — and these use that money to buy the company products.
A company buying back shares is spending money to purchase an asset on the open market.
A company involved in round tripping passes fictional money in a circle and every company that touches it claims both revenue and expenses simply for passing it along.
A dividend is taxed. Share buybacks decrease the supply of outstanding shares so the hope is that the share price will increase. If shares are not sold, then there is an increase in value without incurring taxes.
The trick is essentially to buyback your own shares and destroy them. That effectively redistributes the value you bought to other shareholders, much like a dividend would.
How is that better you may ask? two reasons:
- Most investors prefer to accumulate rather than receiving cash. If you post dividends, they are immediately subject to withholding tax, so you get taxed before reinvesting.
- In a lot of cases, capital gains tax and withholding tax are different, the former being much lower than the latter. This is especially the case for funds with foreign UBOs, which incur 2x15% WH tax at the source.
- Buybacks are just more flexible, those that want cash can sell, those who prefer to accumulate are happy to stay, there's no real downside.
You can only realize the tax if the stock owners sell the stock (vs. giving them a dividend which triggers the tax on payment). It is more of a tax delay but since many people who bought these stocks have more money than they need, they no longer need to sell and they don't need the dividends much. So a buyback is just injecting that money back into their shares tax-free.
Yes, that's sort of what I thought must be happening. There's no "trick" involved. It's like saying salaries are a "trick" to avoid dividend tax. They'll still pay tax on it when they sell it.
Well we can argue on the meaning of trick I guess.
Share buybacks are essentially a way to achieve the same effect as dividends, but in a non-obvious way, which has the benefit of avoiding taxation. That's a "trick" in my book, but I guess terminology doesn't matter that much.
> They'll still pay tax on it when they sell it.
Not but it's not _equivalent_. The tax paid on capital gains is not the same as the withholding tax. And paying tax _after_ compounding is not the same as paying it _before_.
Share buybacks are _effectively_ a trick to circumvent withholding tax for investors not willing to divest.
> which has the benefit of avoiding taxation. That's a "trick" in my book
But why? Minimising tax legally is...legal, and not a trick. That's all tax avoidance is.
> The tax paid on capital gains is not the same as the withholding tax.
That seems totally fine - if the rules are different then that's up to the people who write the rules. It's not a trick to choose to be paid via one method or another.
> But why? Minimising tax legally is...legal, and not a trick. That's all tax avoidance is.
I think we are lost in translation here. I am not a native English speaker, so there may be a subtle implication in "trick" that you see and I don't.
I meant "trick" as in "trick of the trade", a clever/crafty way of achieving something that may not be obvious for less experienced individuals.
Re-phrasing my original comment for clarity: "Share buybacks are just a technique to lower WH tax, why do you see this as anything related to round tripping as related in this article?".
My experience with dynamically rendered math has been the opposite: if you have lots of equations to render, it inevitably takes some milliseconds to render, which makes the whole content move around and shake as rendering takes places.
1) You get intermediate results visible in the debugger / accessible for logs, which I think is a benefit in any language.
2) You get an increased safety in case you move around some code. I do think that it applies to any language, maybe slightly more so in C due to its procedural nature.
See, the following pattern is rather common in C (not so much in C++):
- You allocate a structure S
- If S is used as input, you prefill it with some values. If it's used as output, you can keep it uninitialized or zfill.
- You call function f providing a pointer to that struct.
Lots of C APIs work that way: sockets addresses, time structures, filesystem entries, or even just stack allocated fixed size strings are common.
So, bonds basically all tend to converge on the same risk adjusted yield. If you're seeing yields that look like this, the market believes the currency will slip or there's repayment risk (relative to USD bonds that are in the 4.75% range.)
Imagine you have a scenario where inflation is 0 in currency A and 10% in currency B. Would you rather have a 2% bond in currency A or a 9% bond in currency B? This is why Euro bonds go negative sometimes, when USD interest rates were very low and the Euro was deflationary relative to the dollar, it could push rates even further lower.
I wrote an article (it's in Spanish) in which I took data from the central bank since 1990 and created a tool to simulate various scenarios. The tool includes a column showing the average interest rates on central bank-backed investments. Maybe you might find it interesting.
https://roberdam.com/jubilar.html
It's not an inherent feature, but they steer it in such a way so, no, there isn't (at least not for long), unless someone would make a good case for it at some point in the future
The interesting question would be what their currency, where this 11% is offered, typically loses year-on-year
Seriously at this point who cares about US licenses ?
It has been abuduntly clear that AI companies can train however they want, and nobody will enforce anything.
Realistically speaking, even if you could prove someone misused your software as per this license, I don't expect anything to happen. Sad but true.
At this point, I don't care about licensing my code anymore, I just want the option to block it from being accessed from the US, and force its access through a country where proper litigation is possible.
The copyright lobby wrote the EU's AI Act, which force them to publishing the list of the copyrighted works used as training data. This is an ebntrypoint to then ask them some money.
I was confused as well. According to the internet, "ordered" is a material property of a container, it does not depend on the actual values inserted, but rather the insertion sequencing. (e.g. a queue or a stack is ordered, a set is unordered). "sorted" refers to the actual values in the container.
So a list is ordered, but can be sorted or not.
A set is unordered but sorted.
I guess a priority queue is ordered and sorted.
Being truly unordered like a set is not something you can do in a physical computer program unlike a mathematical abstraction. Anything stored is "ordered" in some way, either explicitly by virtual (or physical) memory addresses or implicitly by some kind of storage map equation (like a bitmap/bitvector or N-D C/Fortran array). It just might not be a useful ordering. (I.e., you may have to loop and compare.)
One might qualify such as "system-ordered", or in the Python insert-ordered dict, qualify with "insertion-ordered", though hash tables in general are sort of a melange of hash-ordering. The same container may also support efficient iteration in multiple orders (e.g., trees often support key order as well as another order, like VM/node pool slot number order).
So, in this context (where things are obviously elements of a computer program), it isn't obvious that hair-splitting over ordered vs. sorted in their purest senses is very helpful when what is really missing is qualification.
Of course, like in many things, people tend to name computer program elements after their abstractions. This is where confusion often comes from (and not just in computing!) .. borrowing the names without all the properties (or maybe with more properties, as in this case, though that is all probably a bit iffy with the frailty of how you enumerate/decompose properties).
EDIT: In a similar way, in a realized computer, almost any "set" representation can also be a "map". You just add satellite data. Even a bit-vector can have a "parallel vector" with satellite data you access after the bits (which could even be pointful in terms of cache access). This can cause similar confusions to the "ordered" vs. "sorted" stuff.
What is most scary to me, is that these grants are not opportunistic (money is raised when needed), they are on an enveloppe basis (the amount to be distributed is fixed).
Essentially that means for every dollar not spent on, say, the PSF; then an other organization willing to denounce DEI is going to get these $1.5M.
I fear less for the opportunity loss to _proper_ organizations, and worry that activist anti-DEI/partisan organizations are artificially going to get a massive funding increase.
In that setup, it may be the lesser of two evils for the PSF to accept that grant, if only to deny a more partisan organization to get this funding.
The PSF itself is an activist pro-DEI/partisan organization. If US federal money is going to go to an activist organization no matter what, I would prefer that it does to one that denounces DEI rather than supports it.
It's a general issue with budgeting grants but at the same time companies need to be talked to in numbers. If there's no known money jar, I don't believe anyone will partake and it'll all get more sketchy. 'Why did money appear for them but not for us?' type of thing
I'm not literate at all on nuclear physics, but I remember in the "Chernobyl" TV show (which seemed trustworthy) some divers died after going in the cooling water to close the pumps. How was that water different ?
I watched the show but if I remember correctly they actually didn’t die. They survived.
> The reality is much more positive than the myth, with all three men escaping such a grisly fate. Indeed, Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bespalov are believed to be both still alive as of 2024, while Boris Baranov lived until 2005 when he passed away from heart disease.
Okay maybe theorically, but in the real world I would like to have the filename on a "file not found", an address on a "connection timeout", a retry count on a "too many failures", etc.
reply