Perhaps if an ETF holds similar underlying instruments. It is unlikely this impacts Blackrock more broadly or other unrelated ETFs.
Stepping back, the idea with private credit was to move a lot of lending and credit risk taking away from the banks. Because if the bank fails, then it causes risk to the financial system. If a private credit fund does badly, you have sad investors. But the broader financial system is not imperiled.
And there will always be periods where credit does badly. It is the nature of these markets and lending.
TBC, I think the private credit guys got over their skis over the last 5 years and we'll see some sad investors in the next few years.
I'm a long way from embedded development. But I was under the impression a lot of microcontrollers these days have some ID capability built in, even some relatively low-end ones. This strikes me more as laziness than anything.
This is true, for example many stm32 series have a 96 bit unique id which is derived from the lot number, wafer id and position [1]. Even the low cost stm32g0b1 series I am using has them, but they are missing from some older series.
Moreover, on any device that is connected to Internet you already have a unique MAC address on its Ethernet or WiFi interface.
You can hash this unique MAC address, together with other data that may be shared with the other devices of the same kind, to generate unique keys or other kinds of credentials.
Surprisingly it's not everywhere. I'm very in embedded development and cannot count the amount of time I look for "unique" "id" etc in a reference manual and come up short. It's certainly more common than not, but you often have to design systems for the lowest common denominator.
What point are you trying to make? I'm honestly not sure. Is it that China is polluting a lot? Or a little? That they are making environmental progress? Or none?
They they are exceeding their initial commitment. Talking about pollution in your tone is also a bit rich coming from the biggest net polluter in all of history.
Nobody can know and that's why it's interesting to you... arguing in bad faith. Take your unfalsifiable counterfactual challenge and go back to debate club.
The key layout on the calculator (DA or desk accessory) exactly matches the numeric keypad of the Lisa keyboard, but the big '=' key is labelled 'Enter' on the physical keypad. You could use the keypad to use the calculator, which I remember doing on a "Macintosh XL" (a Lisa running Mac OS) Having the big key be '=' was a nice usability feature since 'Enter' didn't make much sense in the calculator DA.
If you search for pictures of "Original Lisa Keyboard" you can see that the layout is the same. However, in the pictures I found the key that corresponds to the small '=' in the screenshot in the article is labelled '-' and there appear to be some other differences. I don't remember these differences or any rationale for them.
Update: They screenshot in the article exactly matches the Macintosh Plus keyboard -- which is a keyboard I actually owned. Although I used Mac XL before getting my Plus, it's probably this keyboard that I'm remembering:
It’s odd because the original Macintosh had a smaller keyboard without a numpad, however one was offered separately. It’s interesting because this “original” keypad has different placement or operator keys than the Plus keyboard.
the first equals is a boolean test, like "A=B, True or False", the second equals button is an evaluate mandate, like "2+2" -> = -> 4. Evil bit of code under the hood with the treplicate stack
Stepping back, the idea with private credit was to move a lot of lending and credit risk taking away from the banks. Because if the bank fails, then it causes risk to the financial system. If a private credit fund does badly, you have sad investors. But the broader financial system is not imperiled.
And there will always be periods where credit does badly. It is the nature of these markets and lending.
TBC, I think the private credit guys got over their skis over the last 5 years and we'll see some sad investors in the next few years.
reply