• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle





  • If we assume “half a day” is 4 hours, and 500 pounds. That’s 125 pounds per hour. Which isn’t the worst rate. Assuming it’s actually capped at 4 hours and we all know that if it’s your dad’s friend, this is not going to be a set and forget kind of thing. So that 4 hours quickly becomes 10. And suddenly you’re down to 50 pounds per hour. And then if it’s actually static and simple and good, you still have high odds of getting insane feedback demanding changes to make it worse. A motherfucking website would actually be the best option, but wouldn’t get you paid. At that point youre just doing it for the lols.

    But ultimately, this isn’t even about the rate or how much time this will take. this whole scenario depends heavily on the son here. Is the son unemployed and living in dad’s basement for free? Then yeah. Sorry, he should probably take any work he can get for any rate he can get. His dad gets a lot more say in how things work financially if the son is relying on him financially. But if the son is already working a full time job and living in his own house? Then no, I don’t care what the rate is. Don’t commandeer other people’s time. Don’t make deals that people haven’t agreed to. Come to me with opportunities, not demands.








  • You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

    It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”


  • Debian aims for rock solid stability

    To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

    So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”




  • bisby@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devAI Suggestions
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    too lazy to type this obvious thing in?

    This has been the thing for me. I get really bored and lose focus when doing all the obvious repetitive stuff. And the obvious stuff is the stuff I find copilot does best. For anything that requires thought I’m engaged. Those are the fun parts of the job. It lets me do more of the fun part.

    The one major downside that I’ve found is that sometimes I just want to tab complete a long variable/function name, and because of copilot i dont have “old style” tab completion anymore. (I could definitely still handle this myself, but i haven’t)

    edit: this all to say that I don’t use copilot to write code that I don’t know how to write, I use copilot to write code that I’ve written 1000 times before and don’t want to write again. Copilot does a good job of looking through all the open files for context to help make sure the suggestions actually fit into the codebase’s pre-existing style.



  • Sorry, my phrasing of “not how it works” is more about willingness from the lender side and not “allowed” to. He couldn’t even get a bond for for the reduced amount without going through a shady company. He’s certainly not going to get 4 bonds.

    use two or three surety companies, each taking, let’s say, a $50 or $75 million piece to total up to $175 million.

    Even with split up bonds to reduce risk in a normal situation, the bonding company is going to assess risk based on the full cost of the bond. They personally only have to put up less money, so the “how much do i lose if everything goes wrong” scenario is less, but “how likely is it something goes wrong” involves “the person on trial for lying about finances doesn’t actually have enough to cover the full bond, so perhaps that increases the odds of me getting my money back”

    Why would you throw away $50 million dollars. It’s “less risk” only because it’s less money. But if you think he’s shady enough that likely you never see the money again, then why put up any money, especially if you have to compete with others to get the payout.

    If someone said “You can gamble $50 million or $400 million. If you win you get 5%, but the odds of winning are only 10%, and if you lose you only get back $10 million.” You would obviously opt to gamble the $50 million. You want to lose less money. The payout isn’t worth it given the odds. If you were then told “oh, you can just opt out and avoid the dumpster fire of a deal”, you are going to choose to opt out. No amount of “it’s less risk” will make this a good deal for a bonding company.

    So yes, syndicating the bond is an option, no smart bonding company is going to touch this, which means even with syndicating it will be hard for him to find enough incompetent, shady, unlicensed bonding companies.

    And to be clear, this is not me arguing in favor of why any amount of money was unfair to expect Trump to acquire. This is me pointing out why he’s never going to get the money from legit sources because he’s a financial dumpster fire, and they should just throw the book at him instead of continuously going easy on him.

    edit:

    But with Donald Trump bragging that he has $500 million cash in the bank, combined with the other assets we know he has in real estate

    Trump bragging about made up numbers don’t make anyone more confident about his assets. Both the value of his assets and how much stake in those assets is actually his is a thing he notoriously lies about. He’s even been found guilty about lying about his finances I think.

    If he actually had that money money just in the bank, none of this would be an issue, but the thing is… it’s not true.


  • That’s valid, but even then, a $120m bond is less risk that 4x companies supplying $120m bonds. When the time comes to pay out and you need to get your collateral, if there is only $150m available to actually pay out, you get yours, vs having to split it multiple ways, or otherwise not getting a payout at all.

    And that’s assuming you can get 4x companies to even throw in $120m. He is so unreliable that had to get an unlicensed company to even get that much, so I doubt he’s going to find 4x legit companies to team up.

    But then again, requiring the full amount should still just be enforced. If no one wants to provide bond, thats his problem, not the court’s. I certainly don’t get to say “Well I can’t get bond” and get to have the amount lowered. If I say that, I just don’t get to appeal.