Ummm, are you saying that C is the grandparent of C, or do you have a typo in your example? Sure, the initial comment is not necessarily the grandparent, but in your ABCDE example, A is the grandparent of C, and C is the grandparent of E.
Maybe I'm just misreading your comment, but it has me confused enough to reset my password, login, and make this child comment.
Here's a fun fact: There's a typo in his article [0].
I only learned about the typo when I asked him to sign my copy at a Christmas Tree lecture years ago. Instead of signing it, he corrected the typo. He had a mnemonic he used to remember the digits in a Potrzebie. He had the mnemonic stored on a file on his home machine. I watched him ssh to the machine, then fire up Emacs to look up the mnemonic.
You're correct that the rail needs to continually have its stress managed. This could be cutting the rail and adding a new piece, or removing a bit. This is a fairly labor intensive and costly process so the railroads were very interested in coming up with a way to determine when a buckle or break was most likely.
Buckles and breaks were most common just after a train had left a section of track. The normal approach was to issue slow orders when the temperature got too high (buckle) or too low (break). So there was a lot of interest in finding more accurate ways to determine when slow orders were necessary and to optimize when to add/remove rail.
AFAIK this problem is still outstanding. The product I worked on years ago never quite succeeded. Railroads are a harsh environment.
Breaks are "easy" to find, the problem would be buckles where the track is still "connected" but it is one rail is no longer equidistant from the other rail.
Only if track circuits are used in the first place. Modern installation tend to prefer axle counters, and even with track circuits some designs use only one rail for the track circuit and therefore wouldn't be able to detect breaks in the other rail.
This is a fine article. It covers a lot of the decisions one must consider when considering stock options. I just think it's a little abstract for folks who haven't lived the experience.
I actually tried to enumerate the scenarios. When I hit five variables I realized the advice would be mostly worthless. That's 32 separate outcomes, some of which are pretty subjective, e.g. do I think this is a viable company?
Nevertheless, I've been down this road a few times. I have some wins and losses. I think this article misses an important point: Exercising is not an all or nothing proposition.
For example: If I join a startup and leave after a year, the difference between my strike price and the 409a price might be non-zero. I can still exercise a percentage of my options to avoid AMT. Maybe I can't exercise all of them without triggering AMT, but chances are I can exercise a fair amount.
If I'm offered an early exercise, I don't have to do 100%. I can do a number that fits my budget. I just have to make sure I file my 83b election form.
If I'd bought Bitcoin at $1 and it went to $5, I would have sold. If I'd bought at $10 and it went to $20, I would have sold. If I'd bought at $100 and it went to $150, I would have sold. The amount of discipline it would have taken to hold through all the rises and make an obscene amount of money is well beyond my risk profile.
This is why I'm not convinced "crypto whales" exist. If they really hold that much with no strings, why haven't they sold and retired to live a life of luxury by now? Do they plan to hold out to the grave? What good will that do them?
I can believe some people might have substantial holdings but I bet they also have substantial liabilities such that their net holdings disqualify them as "whales".
It's...not very good, but it's a pretty good example of Patterson's work. I read the first 3-4 books in the Alex Cross series, but gave up after finding no growth or improvement on the character or the author.
I think you'll find his popularity similar to what makes lots of other things popular. His books are rather bland, but not quite boring. He doesn't pack a lot of exposition between the action so the plot moves forward. Unfortunately this often makes the characters seem quite stupid as they rush to action rather than ponder the situation. I find this unrealistic and annoying, especially given Alex Cross's profession.
I was just on a developer group call the other day where another developer from another organization was having weird scaling issues RDPing into the vendor's sandbox. The solution was to adjust some buried registry setting on the remote machine, not fiddle with the local machine. Unfortunately I paid little attention to the details as I rarely RDP and when I do I can tolerate display issues.
I realize this is super vague, but it was so fresh in my brain I had to respond. Maybe someone who actually knows something can provide actual details.
Hello there. That's eerily familiar. For me it was sports (although I was quite good at baseball and soccer) and Turbo Pascal. My parents, especially my Mom, put up a huge resistance to me programming. I had to promise to try out for the HS basketball team (easily my worst sport) to get a computer. I'd been cut the previous two years so of course I barely made the team that time.
My Mom was convinced I was sitting in the computer room playing games. When I told her: "No, I was programming", she asked what I was programming. Of course I told her I was writing a game, as all kids learning to program were. She responded: "See! Games!" as though she'd somehow proven her point.
But, like you, I've made my career from programming and it's treated me quite well for the most part.
Indeed it is. Our rule of thumb is that you have to finish what you start, and generally give it two chances. This worked well for me as a child. I wanted to quit everything after the first go, but there were many activities that I loved after the second go, and a few I was happy to be done with (looking at you trombone).
1. Finishing what you start means honoring the promise you made--be it to the teacher/coach, the team, or someone else. Oftentimes other people are depending on you.
2. Giving the activity a second try accounts for the possibility that the problem wasn't with the activity so much as the environment.
To be clear, I only apply these rules for the kids wanting to quit, not the parents. If, as a parent, I observe unacceptable behavior by the coach/teacher, dangerous conditions, etc I will pull the plug. Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.
I had this happen with a fraudulent charge once. To be clear, I don't know that it was a recurring payment with Stripe, but the behavior was similar. It took me about three years and a half dozen new cards to finally kill it.
At one point I asked the customer rep if there was any way to rid myself of this nuisance other than completely closing my account. She responded with the normal "that's your decision, blah, blah, blah...", but I was legitimately asking, not threatening.
I think I said something like: "No, let me be clear: I don't want to close the account. I just don't want to deal with this every six months either. I'm seriously asking if this is the only other recourse because it seems we've tried everything else."
It did get resolved eventually. It was also for a trivial amount so nothing like what you're looking at. It was still very annoying though.
Maybe I'm just misreading your comment, but it has me confused enough to reset my password, login, and make this child comment.