I don't think it's politically motivated at all. My impression of this IPO is that it's designed to inflate SpaceX's perceived value by offering very limited float and aggressively seeking to capture passive money by bargaining for inclusion in indices it would not otherwise be eligible for. Speaking as a passive investor myself, I want my money nowhere near this company until it meets the old eligibility criteria.
As someone unfamiliar with the US-Canada trade relationship, it would be helpful if you developed this argument instead of stating it as a fact. I'm not well-placed to know whether your belief that Canada has bilked the US out of 46 billion dollars is well-founded or not.
I think that is a very valid criticism. Equally, in the UK there is a sense of providers having tried nothing and then given up concluding that it hasn't worked. Some services that ban bikes legitimately cannot accommodate them safely, some can. Some services legitimately are too busy at peak times to accommodate bikes, and some ban them anyway because making granular policy is hard. In a similar vein, some of those same services that ban bikes due to how busy they are running eight of a possible 10 carriages because they claim not to need the space.
I think a lot of the rules turn out to be reasonable but the rulemakers should be less gung-ho about restricting bikes when they don't really need to
I don't fault OP for this, but it's pretty frustrating to me as someone who's quite attached to his non-folding bike that the main benefit of folding bikes is that, unlike regular bikes, they aren't banned from pretty much all public transport
I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, people are bad epistemologists and lots of countries manage with similarly limited jury trials. On the other, we're doing it for cost reasons, which I think is the worst basis imaginable for such a move
I'm not quite clear on the how of it, but Stockfish works pretty well outside the normal bounds of chess. There are toy chess variants on chess.com with "dragons" (knight + bishop) and stockfish can use those very effectively
Which insinuations do you think are ludicrous? Is it not a matter of public record at this point that the NSA and NIST have lied to weaken cryptography standards?
Coffee is inherently not a consistent drink. The only brewing methods that don't vary significantly with brewer skill and chance are immersion brews, which aren't broadly used in modern coffee shops. It's surely better to not burn the beans to ash and accept some inconsistency than ruin the drink every time
You don't need verifiers. I interviewed at R3 (now Onyx) in JP Morgan and my take on the business was that it's more of a distributed ledger than a blockchain
There are lots of instances in which it is in fact your responsibility to pay the staff and if you choose to ignore that fact and stiff them that's on you
Seems like there's no benefit even if it's used "correctly"?