So is what they're doing some sick joke? I doubt people couldn't care less about the damage done by functionally worthless companies. People are pissed at the perception of manipulation by wall street. This is hilariously myopic. People aren't upset about losing money. They're upset that the game _looks_ (and ostensibly is) rigged. That is where all the lack of confidence stems.
That's the very problem, in this case, it _did_ benefit the institution -- the hedge funds. By restricting buys, retail was unable to drive the demand and put shorts into margin calls (we discuss the ethics of this until the cows come home). In this very case, an unknowable amount of money should have been transferred from hedge funds to retail investors but didn't because buyers were unable to buy.
While a cursory search appears to prove your point (given the constraint of "public funds"), the fed has bailed out hedge funds [1], I don't remember reading that all.
Probably the quietest "bailout" comes from Long Term Capital Management in 1998 was basically bailed out by banks at the urging of the feds[2].
It seems that most funds are left to die [3] (or, more alarmingly, dissolved at the hands at the SEC for insider trading (I'm sensing a trend...))
Perhaps, as "an exercise left to the user", I'll look more deeply at this matter; as it's quite interesting.
This reads sort of tone deaf to me. There is a clear definition of what it means to be impoverished. In the US it's income relative to dependents, [defined by HHS](https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). TO say that someone isn't impoverished because they are living rent-free (legally or illegally) or don't have obligations to pay bills misses the point altogether; and quite frankly, is flat out insincere. It doesn't matter if the child moves back in with their parent and doesn't have bills to pay. I'm curious to know, what if the person that loses their job is 40 and moves in with their parents? My point is, I don't think it matters if it's a child moving in to their parent's second house -- they may never be able to recover from this, and that is the larger, systemic problem at hand.
How we, as a collective society, address issues pertaining to the poor, disenfranchised, forgotten, downtrodden, speaks volumes about our priorities and interests. And I think, given the types of relief that has happened during this moment, and looking at how society answers this historically, we are not doing well.
This fact almost killed my Ph.D. I wrote a programming language and type system for biologists and chemists. But the PL theory syntax nearly did me in. TAPL was like banging my head against a brick wall -- completely opaque to me. My PI wasn't familiar with the space either, so I was sort of on my own. The school eventually brought in a PL theory faculty and things sort of got better. But yes, the syntax for PL is certainly one of the more complex, nuanced, and difficult notations I've worked with.
There aren't any formal rules that he lives and dies by, but read "Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist" by Lowenstein. Buffett -- or at least Lowenstein captures -- expresses concern for people buying before he does.
Have had 2 kids in CA. Can confirm[1]. They even write you a pathetic "don't go" letter when you file the paperwork to destroy the records. They allow all sorts of organizations to use the data[2].
To ruminate about this a bit, let's assume our Congress critters never change. So Congress passes law "X" during Congress "Y". It is now 50 years in the future. Who do we ask about the intent of the law? Do we ask the initiators, cosigners, committee, do we take a survey of the entire congress? I'm not trying to prove any point -- I'm genuinely interested in understanding how this could play out!
More generally this falls into a discussion of context-specific vs context-free grammars. Of which C++ falls into the former, Java falls into the latter.
Isn't this why the cosigner exists on student loans? Basically the cosigner is the one with collateral, capable of meeting the terms of the loan. While IANAL, my understanding of reading a master promissory note for student loans is that basically the debt falls to the cosigner should the primary be unable to meet the financial obligations in any way (after wage garnishing, etc).
I apply a bit of hyperbole here, but I'm convinced that "national security" is a monotonic function that will eventually encompass everything in the federal government.
I have a sneaking suspicion that xfinity does this. When signing up they said there were no password restrictions. So I generated ~64 character password using my trusty password manager, and used that. Went to log in and couldn't, wrong password. So I changed my password, again ~64 characters, with the old trusty companion. Again, couldn't log in.
Finally, I just changed my password to a randomly generated password of a commanding ~16 characters and haven't had a problem logging in since. I've spent more time than I care messing with my password on xfinity's site. There was exactly no scientific endeavor, and is purely conjecture. But it really feels as though there is some chicanery happening with passwords.
Not sure if you have access to it, but reaxsys[1] is an amazing database for stuff like this. I've used it many times for looking for (un)safe reaction paths for particular drugs. It looks like the ``free'' version might let you get a lot of information from it.
Also, pubchem[2] might be of help as well. This is entirely free.
Excel is the most widely used domain-specific language -- maybe even widely used "programming language" (if I'm painting with a broad brush, though it is turing complete) used to date. Getting people off, when a company's livelihood is literally at stake, is no small ask. Solve this problem and you'd be a bajillionare (official title).
I scan the comments and see a few anecdotal comments about how life is just fine with LO. But as many other comments point out: it's not the one-offs that make this hard, it's the fact that excel is the de-facto information exchange between people, businesses, and boards. To be a broken record: it's too ingrained.
My advisor pseudo follows this. He does his best to bring in pairs of students that will be on _similar_ topics. (of course they are both responsible for their independent research and thesis). That way they can struggle together and find their way, it helps lesson the burden he has as idea generation now is covered and "getting stuck" is less worrisome as you are stuck with someone. As the students grow, they separate into their own thesis but the great part is they tend to still collaborate with their peer, so even by thesis end, both know each other's thesis pretty well.
In this context, I'd be encouraging my children to do this (and certainly take the blame for them); false positives ftw! It'd be a great, teachable moment where I can discuss many sociological, technological, and ethical issues at once. On top of that I can teach them a thing or two about opsec.
The school is really at a loss here for retribution: in many instance the students are required to use the school's equipment for completing assignments and projects. So the worst they can really do is "restrict" usage -- but that isn't really any different than what they already do. So it's a bit of a headache for me and the kid(s)? A small price to pay for demonstrating the hilarious shortcomings of implementing a technological solution to a purely human problem -- one that requires specially trained humans to fix.
(Of course I'd make sure the kid(s) give me their blessing before messing with the school)
On another note: I have extensive experience working for school districts. This is absolutely a CYA attempt with no foresight into what the outcome of this terrible experiment will be. These solutions tend to be hacked together, easy to circumvent, and poorly implemented. While I have no direct experience with the product mentioned, I do have experience with school-focused solutions. We had to pay the extra money for purely commercial solutions to get anything that was worth the money.
Apparently I'm beyond the edit window of my original post. I mean the "world [in CS] is completely discrete[, in the context of mathematical modeling and abstraction.]"
I did not intend to imply that the world is discrete in the strictest sense. Just that, except for AI/ML, discrete math will prove much more helpful to understanding the concepts and material presented in a graduate CS curriculum.
The benefit studying continuous maths provides in the context of CS is the rigor and modeling skills one gains.
All of my thesis is rooted in Programming Languages, Compilers, and Type Theory. Continuous math is utterly useless in this context. It's all SAT/SMT, set theory, and graphs -- all of which are topics in discrete math.
Oh, hey. Are you me? I am wrapping my time in CS grad program, and I also, never took calculus as a formal class.
Now, I will say, save machine learning/AI, calculus isn't really necessary; the world is completely discrete.
That being said, that doesn't mean that knowing calculus wouldn't _enhance_ your ability to understand and digest some of the more difficult reductions and proofs in, say, a theory of computation course.
I relied on "The Calculus Tutoring Handbook"[0]. I wanted a book that had answers to _all_ the exercises for confidence building purposes. The book goes slow and provides a great amount of detail -- the authors are pretty good at not hand-waving.
I also found \r\learnmath useful as a "I have a problem and can't ask anyone" site. They are really friendly.