Yes, "same shape" in this context means "isometric". Rotations and reflections are considered differences in the way the shape is placed into the plane, not differences in the shape itself.
Fascinating. Rotation feels like it should be "allowed" to me, because you can continuously rotate a 2D shape to any other orientation, in 2D, without it ever becoming not the same shape.
Reflections feel like a totally different thing, because there's no continuous path to go from a shape to its reflection in 2 dimensions: you either have to have it instantaneously jump to its reflection, or introduce an extra imaginary "third dimension" for it to move through.
I'm not arguing with the definitions, because that's pointless. I'm just trying to explain why I find it so surprising as a lay person that reflections would be admitted in this way.
The trades were not annulled, because NYSE ruled them not "clearly erroneous". Which is why it is was an existential mistake, not just an embarrassing one.
I had the same question while reading. It's probably obvious to the startup crowd, which is why it wasn't made explicit, but I think the trick is this: a company which will never make a profit is (should be) worth zero, but a company that has the ability to make a profit in the future is valuable, even if current profits are zero. So rather than making a profit and paying it to yourself, it's better to make the company as valuable as possible to other people by reinvesting everything, and then sell stock or borrow against it for your own consumption. That definitely seems true for the most prominent outliers, but no idea whether it's actually true for the average or median owner / founder.
I guess this why EBITDA is important: if you have positive EBITDA and stop growing the business, you can pay off your loans, finish depreciating your existing equipment, and with I=D=0 you have real profits.
This is true of almost everything in math. You learn some definitions and techniques in one class, and it doesn't all become clear what's going on until you've used those to as the base layer for solving some other problems in the next class. Part of it is just that it's hard to teach you need the first concept in order to understand the second, but you need the second to understand why you should care about the first, so it's all a bit circular.
> Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues.
I agree with this completely, but it doesn't help when justices begin their opinion / concurrence / dissent with a long policy discussion before talking about the legal questions. That's been the case in several of the recent decisions.
That's not it at all. All parties agreed that Congress passed a law allowing the EPA to regular carbon emissions by setting emission limits on different types of power plants based on the best current technology available for emission reduction. The disagreement is whether that allows the EPA to set emission limits which are impossible to achieve, with the goal of forcing fossil fuel plants to shut down or subsidize renewable sources.
If you're talking about the FDIC, that protects you only in the case that the bank fails. It doesn't have anything to do with fraud against you in particular.
I read the below more as the company failing to enforce a policy of employees using business accounts/devices for business communication rather than the company failing to surveil private accounts. Basically, employees should be using "official" communication channels that can be audited for business communication and save WhatsApp for friends and family.
> As described in the SEC’s order, JPMS admitted that from at least January 2018 through November 2020, its employees often communicated about securities business matters on their personal devices, using text messages, WhatsApp, and personal email accounts. None of these records were preserved by the firm as required by the federal securities laws. JPMS further admitted that these failures were firm-wide and that practices were not hidden within the firm. Indeed, supervisors, including managing directors and other senior supervisors – the very people responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with JPMS’s policies and procedures – used their personal devices to communicate about the firm’s securities business.
> its employees often communicated about securities business matters on their personal devices, using text messages, WhatsApp, and personal email accounts. None of these records were preserved by the firm as required by the federal securities laws. JPMS further admitted that these failures were firm-wide and that practices were not hidden within the firm. Indeed, supervisors, including managing directors and other senior supervisors – the very people responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with JPMS’s policies and procedures – used their personal devices to communicate about the firm’s securities business.
They have to do this by las. Part is to “run the tapes” is there is a customer disagreement, and part is records keeping for compliance purposes. (Anti-Money Laundering, making sure transactions have economic substance, etc) In the aftershock of 2008 it came to light that much of the illegal behavior happened when people switched to personal devices.
