I think it’s more complicated than that because the students expect to get jobs after completing the degree, if they even can complete the degree.
For example, Im not great at art and don’t really have a passion for it. Should an art school accept me even though I’ll never have a career as an artist? Keep in mind I’d be taking a spot from someone who could. I have no doubt they’ll be able to improve my abilities but that’s not why many students apply.
I wonder what percentage of people work in the field their degree is in. I suspect it’s very high for some (law, pilot, doctor) and very low for others (history).
If you’re representing the college, how do you know the individual you’re about to hire has sufficient knowledge to both teach the material and cover any questions on the material students may raise.
I have lab equipment that needs a power cycle after 48 hours of power on time for it to continue to produce high quality data. This is because the internal calibration code only runs upon boot. Maybe these planes have something similar.
So, to me, the power cycle thing is not super surprising. That fact that the FAA felt the need to order Boeing to do it seems a bit suspect though. That's probably the real story.
If you’re willing to pay there are always ways to move value out. For example, buy $1M worth of t-shirts inside China. Sell for a 5% loss outside of China but say you sold at a 20% loss. Now you have money outside of China. You had to pay a decent fee and have a partner outside of China to do it but hey, that’s what gangs are for.
Ever wonder why both Chinese investors and the Saudi sovereign fund were prepared to pay huge premiums in valuations when investing in companies, even though it was apparent it was likely they'd make a loss?
This is it. If you have $100M inside China, can take a 30% loss but end up with $70M in the US that isn't a bad deal.
> Ever wonder why both Chinese investors and the Saudi sovereign fund were prepared to pay huge premiums in valuations when investing in companies, even though it was apparent it was likely they'd make a loss?
This is totally unrelated. If you’ve got money outside the country you’ve already won, the point is that Chinese people can’t freely participate in foreign funds.
For example, many funds (sequoia, light speed, etc) maintain separate independent China funds to which the Chinese are restricted. It should be obvious to say, but a Chinese person cannot easily get wealth out of the country using a Chinese investment fund.
> If you have $100M inside China, can take a 30% loss but end up with $70M in the US that isn't a bad deal.
That’s not what GP is describing. GP is describing fraud wherein you lie about your losses (take 5% loss, report 20% loss). Everything you claim you earned goes back to China, but the gap between reported losses and true losses stays outside the country.
Note that you still want to be investing in a somewhat successful business for this scheme, to minimize loss of capital.
What challenges are there in moving that kind of money around? I imagine if you're that rich you have a private banker that deals with any AML reporting that has to be done on $100M
I was in this position just recently where git suddenly stopped working, due to needing a complete update of xcode tools. Annoying blocker but OK, let's get it done.
But trying to download the xcode tools put me into a loop which wasn't completing for some reason. After several attempts waiting for it to download and install I gave up and created an alias 'git' which points to my brew install of git (in usr/local/bin I think).
When you try to install git it forces you to install Command Line Tools for XCode (whatever the f that is) which can take an unknown time to download, force you to accept a license and breaks, and force you to reinstall them at least once a year (or randomly the next time they break something)
Did you know that GCC take an unknown time to download, and forces you to accept a license?
I think it’s pretty common knowledge that Macs are sold as consumer machines that don’t include a full tool chain out of the box. Guess what - it’s free to download and sometimes it gets updates.
It’s hard to understand why you are making such a fuss about installing developer tools on a developer machine.
Sometimes I find I have to install gcc or clang or llvm on a Linux machine in order to install some other package. Why would I moan about this?
> Did you know that GCC [...] forces you to accept a license?
No it doesn't. The GPL is only relevant if you plan to distribute GCC, and you are never made to affirm your agreement when downloading, installing or using GCC. GCC never prompts you with any "click agree to continue" bullshit.
> Prompt or no prompt, if you use GPL software, you are forced to accept the GPL.
No prompt, no forced acceptance. You are simply wrong. The GPL permits all use, it has no restrictions on use. It restricts only distribution.
> This is no different from Apple’s license, which also allows you to use the software freely unless you want to redistribute it.
You are wrong. You didn't read Xcode's license. I did, it places substantial restrictions on how and where you can use Xcode, not just restrictions on distribution.
Limits on distribution are limits on use. If you don’t understand that, I suggest you Google for some discussions about why many people don’t use GPL’s software - it’s because the limits on distribution affect their usage.
Fair point about the XCode license being more restrictive than I said.
How does that have anything to do with requiring users to have an account to download software signed by Apple from Apple's servers? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
This problem was solved years ago with code signing.
Running unsigned code requires several hoops, even running signed code which isn't Apple Approved requires telling the OS that you know what you're doing, twice.
Running signed code which has been altered, such as a hacked XCode, isn't possible, as far as I know.
If this was the reason developer accounts were required, it no longer is. From Apple's perspective, there's only upside in requiring them, which is the most likely explanation for why they do.
For example, Im not great at art and don’t really have a passion for it. Should an art school accept me even though I’ll never have a career as an artist? Keep in mind I’d be taking a spot from someone who could. I have no doubt they’ll be able to improve my abilities but that’s not why many students apply.