The subsidy was not to bring Amazon to Manhattan, it was to bring Amazon to Queens. The only reasonable places to commute to it is if you lived in NYC or Long Island, so most of the subsidy would have been paid back via taxes by the people working there. This doesn't include the construction jobs, restaurant and bar businesses, and real estate taxes that would be collected in the long term after the subsidy expired. I do agree that AOC represented NJ, Connecticut, and Amazon's long term interests very well. Her district, not so much.
> I do agree that AOC represented NJ, Connecticut, and Amazon's long term interests very well. Her district, not so much.
If you consider the fact that even before the deal fell apart people began buying up swaths of real estate in the area in preparation of pushing out her current constituents then I think she made the right move.
Her people are the blue collar workers of the district.
The previous rep who was the Democrats top connection to Wall Street didn't even live in the district. he lived in Virginia :talk about not representing their interests.
> The moment that reward becomes a currency, and is traded for U.S. dollars, it leaves the domain of just being software. Banning that is quite different from banning the software per se.
That would make Eve online, Second Life, and other games illegal since people trade their digital assets all the time
>Comparing Bitcoin to free software seems similarly disingenuous.
Stock splitting isn't dilution. It is the equivalent of breaking a $10 bill into 2 $5 dollar bills. Dilution is just printing more $10 bills aka inflation.
0. Adafruit cannot raise prices of rpis due to contract.
1. Adafruit makes the same amount of money regardless of who buys the product.
2. It is in the incentive of Adafruit to increase it's customers good will. It is considered an asset for Adafruit (Companies account for this via 'Good Will').
3. People generally don't like scalpers, "Scalpers bad"
4. By providing means to avoid scalpers, they are capturing some of the profit that scalpers would be making and converting it to a 'Good Will' asset, "Adafruit Good"
Accounting "goodwill" is the price an acquiring company pays above the accounting value of the business being bought, which is a notional number usually (much) lower than the economic value of a successful business.
Correct. Aatsmyles was mistaken in relating the goodwill he/she described to accounting goodwill. In other words, aatsmyles shouldn't have used the phrase "account for" goodwill.
Interestingly (at least to a weird human like me), there is something of a relationship between accounting goodwill and goodwill like the value of a brand. The reason why goodwill only shows up on a balance sheet after an acquisition is, I imagine, to follow the accounting principal of conservatism.
Let's spice things up with a hypothetical. I'm going to make up some numbers here so don't go around telling people I revealed some privileged information on HN.
Say you're Mr. McIlhenny, the() owner of a major private company called the McIlhenny Company. The McIlhenny Company's primary endeavor is selling a beloved hot sauce called Tabasco. On the income statement side, McIlhenny has revenues of $200 million and profits of $30 million. On the balance sheet, Tabasco has no liabilities (no long term debt, no payables, etc) and its only asset is cash, of which it has $1 million. Since (equity) = (assets) - (liabilities), this company has a "book value" of $1 million. You might notice that the book value seems absurd - a company that makes tens of millions of dollars a year and has a product with a major following would be a total steal of a purchase at $1 million!
A few purchasers attempt to woo you, and they each make offers for about $100 million. You go with Carl Icahn's offer. Now, the company's book value is $100 million (the balance sheet has $1 million in cash and $99 million in goodwill on it).
Clearly, the day before the acquisition, the company had roughly $99 million in "real" or "intrinsic" goodwill, but that didn't show up in the balance sheet. Why's that? One reason is conservatism. For many intangible assets, there's an art to choosing a number. If you let CEOs put in a goodwill number, many would probably throw in huge numbers as they vastly hype up the value of their brand and reputation. So, instead, we have a market approach to calculating goodwill by using transactions.
However, accounting principals allow companies downwards. So the CEO of Nikola isn't allowed to turn his bogus claims into dollars on the goodwill line item, but he is allowed to reduce goodwill if he buys a battery manufacturer that turns out to be a fraud too.
() It's owned by the McIlhenny family, but no need to complicate things
No/No/No definitively. Dates without times are ranges. If one person is born on 2022-06-01 12:00:00 and another person was born on 2022-06-01 13:00:00 then they have the same birthday 2022-06-01. It follows, that if you know that 2 people are born on the same day such as 2022-06-01, then it is unknown if they were born on the same time. So adding a default time to a day (such as 00:00:00) is nonsensical.
> Dates without times are... Dates? Aren't we talking about two distinct types here?
I assume this is a response to specifically this part:
> Dates without times are ranges.
If we're talking conceptually about general date/time/datetime comparisons, not pegged to a specific programming language or type system, I agree with it: Dates are a 24-hour range.
If you consider that dates are ranges, they’re not 24h but 50 (currently, can change) since a dare has no zoning information: a given date starts at 00:00 on Kiribati (UTC+14:00) and ends the same on Baker (UTC-12:00).
If you're treating dates as ranges, then even ignoring the timezones and daylight savings it still doesn't mean that a date implies a range from 00:00 to 24:00 - the mapping is inherently domain-specific and thus depends on the particular interpretation of that date field (thus it's nonsensical to expect a generic answer/comparison rule for "dates" i.e. all dates).
For example, in the domain of financial settlement, a future date of 2022-03-03 would imply that the event must happen by the end of business day of 2022-03-03 (and thus an event at 23:00 of 2022-03-03 would be too late and would map to 2022-03-04 instead); and in a similar manner, the appropriate date for any events happening in the middle of a sunday would be either monday or friday depending on what your rules are, as the effective date which you would be using to calculate the number of days between two events (for e.g. interest) in may jurisdictions has to be a business day; so two events timpestamped five minutes apart might need to be treated as if they are on the same day, different days, or in some cases many days apart (e.g. with a combination of Christmas + weekend).
Different domains will have different rules; the generic concept of "date" is too vague to define an universal comparison operator and you have to look at the meaning of each specific date field/variable and expect different date fields/variables to need different semantics.
Wouldn't dates with times also be ranges? The ranges are just tighter. If something happened at 11:02AM, did it really happen at 11:02AM? Or did it really happen somewhere between 11:02.0AM and 11:02.99999AM?
