Equity holders have a more junior claim than debt holders, but if there are enough dollars in the bankrupt company to make the debt holders whole, the equity holders get whatever is left over (obviously in order of seniority).
There’s already a relatively liquid market here around legal financing, but they only finance cases that can win. This is not a case that will result in anything but a dismissal.
I am not a lawyer. If you are, then I will consider this response null and void… but if you’re not, just go to your LLM du jour and ask it why this case might have ground. If it is even 1% convincing then imagine what sort of case a real attorney could come up. Then multiply the odds of winning against a billion dollars. A >0.01% chance EV would probably catalyze at least one of these firms.
That’s not how the real world works. Sometimes the chance of winning is actually 0, and sometimes when you pursue something frivolously you actually end up having to pay the other side’s fees. The EV of a lawsuit can easily be less than 0.
Accepting contributions when you do this is a bit weird. They need to sign away their rights to their code so you can sell it. This is why the “open-source” database companies (all of which dual-license) don’t accept contributions.
> They need to sign away their rights to their code so you can sell it.
They can't accept contributions under the AGPL, but what stops them from accepting contributions under e.g. the BSD license? Does the BSD code stop Apple from selling macOS?
There is a meaningful difference between allowing someone to use your code for whatever and assigning the rights to it so that you can no longer use it.
And requiring contributions under BSD/MIT doesn't seem to be a huge problem for the projects that actually use those licenses.
The bigger problem they have is that nobody uses e.g. FreeBSD because if they do anything interesting the code just ends up in Linux/macOS/Windows whereas the reverse doesn't happen.
Cubesats can’t take very good pictures. You need a big mirror to get really clear imagery and you can’t cram one of those in a cubesat. Space telescopes are by nature massive, heavy satellites unless they aren’t intended to look very far or see very much. The other option is to cheaply build something absolutely massive on Earth.
I know, that’s why I said that cubesats don’t count. There are already lots of cubesats with telescopes in orbit, but they don’t count because you couldn’t do good astronomy with them.
Most of the major orchestras have a union and they negotiate salaries in the $100-200k range for everyone. It’s a lot more people than you might think (70-150 people on payroll in each orchestra). There are also a lot of touring soloists in the world compared to what you expect. It’s a very stressful life, but it yields somewhere between $100k and $1M per year, and many of your living expenses are fully paid for on top of that.
There are at least 20 such orchestras in the US alone, not to mention all the orchestras in Europe and Asia. There’s also a very long tail with compensation down to $50k for players.
The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
> The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
$40/hour is not bad. Aside from the few thousand tenured orchestra/chorus musicians, none of them are going to be making 6 figures from one job, but a number of musician-musician households pull in over $100k between two incomes built around relatively unstable gig work without either one having a high-prestige job.
Also note that churches, which are a hub for working-class musicians, are exempt from BLS reporting.
$40/hour is $83,000 per year, that is more then livable in the US, and by definition of the median half make more. So I can't agree that it's not a living wage for most.
it's nowhere close. Most orchestras are playing 1-2 nights a week (max) and each performance has 0 or 1 rehearsal (1 if it's a new program, 0 otherwise). Average when performing is maybe 20hr a week
I was surprised to see the main benefit of intrusive linking mentioned as a bit of a side note: The ability to move data around between lists (and within a list) without copying. You also get O(1) removal from the middle of the list, assuming you have a pointer to the object somewhere else. As a result, when you have large state structs and you don't do a lot of list scans, intrusive linking makes things a lot faster than use of packed structures like vectors.
Data is generally read more often than written and data is read in locally spatial way.
That’s why having elements laid out next to one another is often more important than the algorithmic complexity of occasionally doing an O(n) or O(n log n) operation updating the layout.
It’s not always the case of course but it is the case more often than you’d think.
You can do this with non intrusive lists too. See c++’s merge/splice/etc. You can store the iterators in some other place as you do this, making it quite handy on occasion.
I'm pretty sure the author there means to compare the intrusive linked list to a non-intrusive linked list (such as C++ std::list), not to vectors etc. that aren't "linked" at all. As described e.g. in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49549542 .
Are you sure that doesn't qualify on the basis that it is the curtilage of your home? Often this counts as "in your dwelling" because it's in your private space that immediately accompanies the dwelling.
I think this has applied in the case of self defense in Texas, at least on someone’s porch. Curtilage is a general concept, not specific to the fourth amendment.
> Arguably, the protections contained in the [self-defense] statute include what is referred to in legal parlance as the “curtilage” of the property (a home’s porch, steps, garage, or yard)
But the reasoning is, specifically, that defending yourself against someone who is in the curtilage must be protected, because defending yourself against someone who is "attempting to enter" your habitation is protected, and it's impossible to attempt to enter the habitation without being in the curtilage.
This is not compatible with your analysis, which assumes that a person present in the curtilage has already entered the habitation.
In 2021, Kyle Carruth shot someone on his porch and used a castle doctrine argument in his defense, and he was not indicted. That would suggest that the porch is considered part of the habitation separate from an attempt to enter. I think the thing you are citing as an authority here is the opinion of a law firm and not a case, and not necessarily a good one (law firms run the gamut from "alcohol addict in a strip mall" to big law).
This is a bit uncharitable to the concept of a centrifuge here. The Iranian nuclear program seems to have centrifuges that are a lot smaller and cheaper, and you can certainly build one that meets these needs.
I am pretty sure that's a feature, not a problem. The idea of these chips is to rush to idle on webpage-like workloads, and then otherwise use as little idle power as possible. Games and heavy work are generally not the intended workload.
reply