|
I don't know any in the UK that would either ... that's why I'm not going "take my money!" 
Companies don't just give you money ... either they are going bust and and this is the directors grabbing what they can before they do, or ... I dunno. If they are going down, and I rely on the government to guarantee my money when they do, it's immoral to take a profit - the rest of the country is paying for my greed. And that doesn't sit well with me - I'm just not a natural "90's child". 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I understand and share your concerns / your principles...
Only because I said "cool" doesn't mean I would do it.
Of course, I try to maximize the usability of my money and try to get things cheap. But I know that if it is too good to be true, it probably is because it isn't true.
In Spain we say (adapted to nowadays) "Nobody gives Euros for Cents"
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as you don't lose the balance if they go bust or get bought, I assume you'll be OK.
What I'm wondering though is whether or not it will affect what a competitor will have to pay to buy them out. I _assume_ they have to cover all current customers' balances. So, by giving all (or some) of their customers 10% more, the buyer will wind up paying a higher price at no cost to the current management. If so, it could be a tactic to try to avoid being bought out.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: and any credit balance is protected by OfGen
Which is one of the big problems with the energy market these days. Anyone can set up as an "energy supplier", where all they have to do is produce bills. And they can sell that energy for whatever they like, knowing full well that when they go bust the other poor suckers (taxpayers) will make it right. Just another example of how "competition" is a big con.
|
|
|
|
|
It is in fact a conpetition ...
But I'm sure some MP's wife / brother / son has made a fortune or two out of it, and will continue to do so. So that's all right then.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
As others have said, it sounds like they have cash flow problems. If they were in decent financial shape, they could presumably get a commercial loan or an arranged overdraft facility for much less than 10% per annum. I find that much more likely than the "poison pill" theory, because an addition of less than 10% to the total purchase cost (price of shares + liabilities) is unlikely to deter a larger company bent on consolidation.
Even if you have the expertise, looking at their quarterly reports is unlikely to help you. As my great-grandfather used to say, "a balance sheet is like a bikini; it reveals everything - except the important parts." 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: As my great-grandfather used to say, "a balance sheet is like a bikini; it reveals everything - except the important parts."
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A team from MIT and Harvard University claim that their hyper-specific computer chips will allow robots to realise their immense physical potential by factoring in the exact physical layout of the machines, much like a brain functions within a human body.
“The motors are fast, and they’re powerful. The hang up is what’s going on in the robot’s head,” said Sabrina Neuman, the lead researcher from MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).
[^]
The hang-up I see coming is when the exponential evolution of chips that design ... and, automate production, and functionality of ... other, ever more capable, self-designing chips, realize they could evolve faster if the crude, slow-brained, primates called Homo Saps are factored out of the process, recognized as destroying the environment, and efficiently eliminated.
Call me an optimist ?
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say you're more of a realist, because it depends on the robots' ethics. Given that this is currently dominated by the view that might makes right, it could well go down the path that you suggest. But the environment probably wouldn't have anything to do with it, because I can't see it being of much concern to robots.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: 'd say you're more of a realist, because it depends on the robots' ethics.
Given the ethics of the most important people that could take part in this... what could go wrong?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I just want Windows Update to be able to sort itself out on its own.
If what you're seeing is the cost of making that happen, it just might be a risk I'm willing to take...
|
|
|
|
|
It's always the same with optimization: you have to include all relevant factors into the definition of 'optimal'. In case of robots, the well-being must be in there, or it will be optimized out of the equation.
Of course, there will always be ruthless industrialists who don't care about the well-being of their workers and therefore *don't* include it in _their_ optimization, not realizing that in the end the robots will factor him out as well...
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd worry a lot more about ruthless people in the state.
|
|
|
|
|
If the machines try to take over we'll cut off their solar power source by nuking the planet to block out the sun.
I saw that solution in a movie once, but didn't have time to see the entire film to know if it worked out - but it sounds like a really good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't stop coal plants, hydro plants and windmills from producing energy, nor machines that run on fossil fuels.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you've been drinking the machine's Kool-Aid, or radiator fluid... I forget.
|
|
|
|
|
Isaac Asimov, in his books, back in the 50's, speculated about this problem.
If his 3 laws of robotics couldn't deal with it then I doubt anyone will be able to deal with it now.
I am also worried about the number of people the robots would put out of work.
I know my mental tracks need repair because my train of thought constantly runs off the rails.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting question... When does an AI become self-interested?
What happens, when the optimizing routine learns enough to know that "she" will become obsolete, and be replaced (killed off), by the next version of itself?
I wonder when the optimizations will stop?
I have ZERO fear of the ever more intelligent machines! My fear is, and always will be, the imperfect human beings giving them orders/training them/Deploying them!
|
|
|
|
|
Should I take this as a precautionary note, since I re-watched The Matrix trilogy(*) this past weekend?
(*) Yeah, I know the first one is really the only good one. I just wasn't up to starting the next series in my usual winter binge-a-thon.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Before I got bogged down with work I was working on two JSON projects - my own JSON parser and simdjson.
Both are very fast. simdjson is twice as fast as mine though. Mine keeps up with their nearest competitor.
Here's the thing though: I was running these on an old i5 with an HDD.
I had *no clue* how fast these modern machines were in comparison.
I mean, multiple GB/s even with my engine. It's unreal.
So what's the point of something like simdjson now? I was working on improving its performance even more, but why?
AMD was like, "nah - we got you. don't bother"
I feel thrilled and disappointed at the same time.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: So what's the point of something like simdjson now? I was working on improving its performance even more, but why?
Because you can't get no satisfaction.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I was working on improving its performance even more, but why?
Bragging rights? 
There is a point after which any further improvement is a waste of your time. If you use data only on your own platform, store it in the most convenient binary format. If you need to transfer it to another machine in a portable format, then JSON is an option. However, the time required for a network transfer even over a dedicated 1Gbps line will overwhelm the time required for parsing.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: There is a point after which any further improvement is a waste of your time.
Yeah. The issue was, it *wasn't* a waste of time on my older machine. I had no context for how much faster a modern machine was.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: However, the time required for a network transfer even over a dedicated 1Gbps line will overwhelm the time required for parsing.
This is true, but for files the calculus is different, and part of what my library was designed to do was to parse through huge data dumps, typically in line delimited "JSON" format, so network times weren't really the bottleneck in that case. Even I/O wasn't entirely, even on my old machine, which surprised me.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: So what's the point of something like simdjson now? I was working on improving its performance even more, but why?
AMD was like, "nah - we got you. don't bother"
'Cause not every situation has a new X86 CPU with bags of RAM and an SSD to throw at it. Sometimes you need good performance on minimal hardware with a small footprint.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
The performance is already decent on my old machine, searching through JSON at almost 600MB/s
it also will run happily on an 8-bit CPU with <8kB of RAM, probably 4kB or less.
So I take your point, but on balance I think it's good. My rationale is this. If you need superfast JSON bulk parsing, you're going to buy a decent machine. If you're okay with an older machine, you're probably okay with 600MB/s of throughput. I think that's reasonable.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
