We use a combination of GHA and Jenkins jobs. All these end up as checks on GitHub. You could then proceed to say "Allow this PR Merge button if check A is ok and check B is ok" where check A arrived from GHA and check B from a Jenkins job.
Do you really want, for example, the US constitution's write time understandings to be perpetuated forever? Their understanding of "citizen" did not include neither women nor black slaves, just to take one example. Another example is the famous question of "whether or not the right of a woman to abortion is a consitution-guaranteed federal right?" to which a bunch of very important folks gave an answer in 1973 but another bunch of very important folks gave a different answer in 2022.
Write-time understandings no, write-time language yes.
You can always change it, which is what happened in the case of women and slaves.
To be clear, changing the text is the correct way to handle that, we shouldn't have just relied on the understandings of people changing over time to fix those issues.
The famous example you give illustrates why a system without precise meaning cannot work. It can seem like it works when lots of people act in good faith, but it quickly breaks down with even a few actors play the actual game instead of some "spirit of the game".
In 1973, judges ruled one way, playing the actual game to accomplish a goal, and then everyone acted surprised in 2022, when the same tactics (playing the actual game not the spirit) reverted the decision.
I'm going to take a guess, and assume that you were in favor of the 1973 understanding and not the 2022 understanding. It would have been nice for that to have been captured precisely in some kind of specification, instead of enacted with a volatile read-time mechanism.
I don't live in the US and I'm rather indifferent to either understanding, so it would be correct to say that I'm neither in favour nor in opposition of any one of these. Being personally unaffected, I simply find it an interesting subject to observe.
With that, I still want to point out that even if we both agree that "changing the text is the correct way to handle," it's not a possibility that is even remotely practical or achievable; any meaningful progress that the US have had in the last 100 years or so was achieved solely by the means of "reinventing" the meaning of already written (and unchangeable) words. That seems to be the exact thing you seem to be in opposition of.
We should stop comparing incomparable things, like companies market cap (measured in dollars or pounds) to national GDPs (measured in dollars or pounds per year,) unless we want to reach outrageous but incorrect conclusions.
It's a dubious comparison but not because of "per year". The comparison is implicitly to one year's worth of GDP, which is a currency amount.
It's dubious because whereas a year's worth of GDP has some claim to actually being the value of something (with many caveats but it's engineered to behave like that as much as possible), market cap isn't. It's the amount all the shares would cost if someone bought them all in one go for the price some shares were most recently purchased for, which would never happen.
Hashicorp was bought for $35 per share at a time when it was trading a little above $25. Not saying crazy market caps aren't a sign of a bubble (not sure how you'd read that in my comment), just that market cap is not the value of the company.
Variation in price doesn't prove that the market cap is not (a good estimate of) the company value for highly liquid stocks.
Value is subjective. Stock prices measure peoples perception of the value. Your thesis that it is incorrect can only come from 2 places (I think)
1. Dumb money - the market cant see that XYZ is overvalued or undervalued. My rebutal there is nonetheless XYZ has been valued by a conpletely open continuous auction that people are not restricted to participate in.
2. The parts are less than their sum. This may be somewhat true... total control over a company may be more (or less) valuable than splitting. But I dont think it is order of magnitude. And if it is, it is because the value to you isnt the value to me (the value of RAM to a gamer < value of RAM to OpenAI).
Well, based on that last share purchase, we have incontrovertible proof that there was indeed one person in history who thought it was worth 3x GPD.
And the fact that in the entire BSSTC shareholder universe, there wasn't any noticeable volume for a sell, or a registered sell limit, at a lower value leading up to the last peak.
That must have been a rough trade, but someone got something out at the last moment.
1. No, we don't have proof that there was one person who thought it was worth 3x GDP. We have proof that there was one person who thought a 0.001% share of the company was worth 0.003% of GDP or whatever. They could think it was worth that much for plenty of reasons; maybe they thought the share price would grow for a bit more before collapsing so that they could make some profit, maybe they invested in order to just be an investor and have a say in investor meetings or however things worked back then. Maybe it was a status thing.
2. Why are we using the opinion of one random person to determine the value of a company
> Why are we using the opinion of one random person to determine the value of a company
Please don’t invent strawman positions and reflect them on me. I said nothing of the kind.
Of course the company’s worth wasn’t what is implied by the peak trade.
But that price wasn’t set just by the peak buyer. Out of all the other shareholders and shares, nobody was offering a sale on that venue at a lower price.
Outside of all the idiosyncratic psychology of each individual, in aggregate, the market did “think” it wasn’t worth selling leading up to that point.
Then confidence began breaking.
Mania is mania. Bubbles are bubbles. They are not rational, but they are real, not the result of one person or two. Not the result of one peak trade.
Large groups of people start thinking something can’t come down. For a moment in time, a lot of people thought it wouldn’t (at least “yet”).
How far mania goes is what peak price reveals. That price is still a measure of the whole market at that moment.
To add to this, this type of thing happens all the time in crypto.
A coin will release 1/1000000000th of it's eventual supply, have some trades at 10c and then claim the value of the entire supply as the headline value.
What’s the issue? If a market cap is three times an annual GDP, it means it would take three years of that economy’s entire production to purchase the company. It’s obviously a very fuzzy measure for various reasons, but it can give some idea of the market value of a company.
That makes no sense. House price/salary is used to compare payment periods or affordability. The context is important. Share value and GDP are totally different things and there is no direct relationship.
It is effective but wrong. It is the same as to compare a river flow to dam volume. There is a relation, but does not mean anything.
A better comparison is to compare somebody's net value to the total housing value of a city. For instance comparing Musk's net value to the total value of all the houses/apartments in New York. Or the the value of the gold in Fort Knox.
reply