If they don't want it they slow roll it a different policy is stated. If they want it they do it immediately, maybe it's illegal or unconstitutional, but it will take 20 years for the court to eventually rule on it and by then it's a forgone conclusion.
Yes it's quite bad what that muppet is up to but it's not Stalin level yet.
Decades ago I wrote a paper, lost to time now, on the effect of his military purges on the fighting effectiveness of the Red Army during the back half of WW2. He purged not just senior commanders but mid ranks and up, think like down as far as their equivalent of majors. A vast amount of battle-relevant experience was swept away, much more damaging in the day-to-day grind than simply disappearing a few field marshals.
My point is, hope is not lost for the US military. Yes lots of irreplaceable senior experience is being tossed aside for unforgivably stupid and pointless reasons, but there's a lot of recent, hard-won, actual shooting war experience in the officer corps which, if they don't all bugger off in disgust, will serve us well in future. Today's captains and majors are well aware of how drones in Ukraine have changed battle[1], to give one example, and the career-minded among them will be in doctrine-influencing and development positions before too long.
I'm aware this is to some degree wishful thinking.
[1]I chose this example because it's going to be one of that drunken fool's more consequential errors: re-tasking the Army unit charged with developing drone capabilities for the US.
Russia won not because of tactical brilliance, but because they simply threw biomass at the problem.
Just throw enough barely armored tanks and bodies at the problem, and the germans eventually run out of resources. It only took about 9M soldiers. Glorious sacrifices for the benefit of Stalin.
Consider how many lives would have been saved with a shred of tactical brilliance.
It took me a while to figure out what happened, but this is my understanding.
1. OP was granted 25,000 options.
2. OP was told by Nvidia their options had vested and they need to exercise. OP said ok, I’ll exercise.
3. Nvidia made an error in stating the number of options (although the paperwork had the correct number), so only a portion were exercised.
4. The remaining options expired as they were not exercised.
So the legal argument is that Nvidia’s error in stating the number of options resulted in OP’s loss. However lawyers have told OP the statue of limitation on such a civil suit have passed thus no point in pursuing it.
Clearly he sold them early, and would have sold these extra ones too if he'd exercised them. It's just weird that he's trying to hide the fact by failing to mention it and ignoring questions about it.
It's OK, dude. We've all been there. You're in good company with Masayoshi Son on this one.
So someone who was previously unknown brought all this attention on themselves while being a coy billionaire? We live in strange times so it's possible but doubtful.
Yep. He is trying to stir up public opinion after his legal options petered out.
Admitting the status of his original shares is not a good look either way. Either he sold, and the additional shares aren't technically worth $1B because he'd have sold them too. Otherwise he held, and is another unsatisfied greedy billionaire in the world.
Outside of crop growth we're also way behind on food addatives like tartrizine, which we pump into our children's candy with wreckless abandon, my understanding is the EU banned these additives and a few that have similar long term health effects some years back. I'd rather the industry get in front of these things before the government has to regulate, but I guess we have to do things the hard way. The pessimest librarian in me guesses EU rules would ruin and put off balance many Canadian insustries, and regulations of the big food co racket will be last to happen and be exempt from the US shipping us their toxic foodstuffs recently banned stateside up here. It could easily be worst of both worlds. It makes sense that Canada and US are biggest trading partners, I certainly don't understand the ins and outs of all the trade vortexes across our borders, but I know politicians are milking the show for all it's worth while regular people would love nothing more then for the show to move on and get back to our usual crony capitalism where even the little guy can run a business that crosses the border without a department of wizardry of tarriffs, we miss you guys and we're stronger working together!
Oh gross! Thanks for the correction, I now wonder where my misconception came from! And there goes the silver lining that came to mind about Canada and the EU getting tighter, more trade with a higher transportation cost?
Banning Atrazine, Diquat, Mancozeb, Chlorothalonil and Bromoxynil would be a good start.
I’ve noticed significantly less pollinator species in the past 20 years, many insects are dying out because of these pesticides. I won’t comment on cancer or other side effects as I’m not educated enough to know the truth, but it seems if we have one large world government universally agreeing that these things are bad, and should be banned, it feels weird that other g7 nations continue on with their head in the sand.
That's the risk you run immigrating to another country.
I immigrated to another country and I went in eyes wide open knowing that at any point I might have to pack up and head home. In fact, it became far harder to immigrate only a few years after I did. Likelihood is that if I hadn't come when I did I never would have been able to.
It took 10 years to finally become a citizen, but I did so the first day it was an option (yes, I counted down the days and sent in the application on day 1), because I knew it was the only way I could safely assume I'd never be forced to leave.
I have lived in Germany for five years and your parent poster is right. Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands are generally better. But Germany is a great country to live in with high living standards.
Not GP, but: Belgium and Louisiana. And I’d pick Belgium again in a heartbeat, even if you removed all of the non-political (e.g. climate) differences.
Sorry, but you are just talking out of your, well whatever. E.g. in The Netherlands we have mostly had right-leaning or right-wing governments in the last few decades [1] and still right-wing populists are very popular. It's more that xenophobia is a disease that spreads very easily over and over again. Combine this with refuge crises, partially caused by the US (e.g. the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and knock-on effects), partially caused by proximity to a lot of countries with continuous instability (the middle east, North Africa). Finally, add some Russian disinformation campaigns on top and this is what you get.
Many Europeans are better off than a few decades ago. Heck, many European countries were still under authoritarian rule until a few decades ago (East Europe, Spain, Greece, etc.).
"Dammit why don't the voters realize how much better their lives are!!! Must be xenophobia then"
I get that people always want a simple answer and vilifying your political opponents feeds the ego.
Clearly Europeans don't feel like things are better than a few decades ago. Any politicians who ignores that or blames something like xenophobia has blinders on.
Not to mention if it were made public, how could it be done without exposing the technology?
“US govt sees massive methane emissions”
“How?”
“Uhh, satellites.”
“Which ones?”
reply