It's not so challenging and it happens widely in industry: people are often heavily restricted in the range of trading they may conduct in cases where their business would give them insider knowledge, such as in certain parts of banks, accounting firms, credit rating agencies etc
> It's not so challenging and it happens widely in industry:
Restricting people only to government bond investments (the first line of my post, the point I was responding to) does not happen widely in industry.
Restricting people’s trades of a few stocks where they have insider knowledge does happen. I would be in favor of laws against congressional insider trading, too, but not laws forbidding all stock ownership or restricting them to government bonds as was proposed above. That’s just short sighted.
You're creating a straw man (perhaps accidentally) which makes your argument seem such stronger than it is against the actual proposals.
Neither the comment you replied to, nor the proposed law, suggest the limit should be solely government bonds, which is what you're arguing against in your comment, they both say government bonds OR publicly traded diverse stock funds, for example ETFs.
Maybe you still believe that's restrictive enough to be a problem, but considering many people, even the likes of Warren Buffet, consider the best investment advice to be either "just invest in ETF/funds that track the whole market" or "just invest in a mix of ETFs/funds and also some bonds", while nobody considers "just invest in government bonds" to be good advice, your argument would be a hell if a lot weaker if actually applied to what IS being proposed rather than pretending that the proposal only allows investing in government bonds.
Reminds me of reading Programming Collective Intelligence by Toby Segaran, which inspired me with a range of things, like building search, recommenders, classifiers etc.
Yes, fuly agree. And enough time has passed with it being robust and performant that the old bores who used to go on about KDE performance have finally given up bleeting on about that.
I wouldn't bash GNOME as clearly plenty of work goes into it and having two decent DE is good for the ecosystem, but for me GNOME never struck a chord compared to the elegance of KDE - it just feels like the Duplo version compared to KDE
This was good to read, thanks. Last experience with KDE is probably almost 30 years ago when it was so sluggish I quickly gave up on it. With Gnome being _the default_ in some sense given Ubuntu's control of desktop Linux, it never even came to mind to give kubuntu a try, I think I will.
It's wrapping the web version of Teams, so presumably there are few of the issues you suggest because most of the functionality comes from the page and it's just changes that impact the smaller number of Linux integrations that need attention.
A new joiner colleague from another team tried this with me. The script was followed in such a clunky manner I started to wonder if that team had unwittingly hired someone with learning difficulties. Whatever the situation, they didn't benefit because they made a number of poor decisions on the back of the conversation, but I shouldn't write the technique off due to one poor adherent.
Yes, the context of this seemed pretty hard to figure out from the abstract alone. Opening the PDF I see it's physics related and they have illustrations that seem like some kind of actual physical shape. But I'm still somewhat at a loss what they mean here!
