HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | LanceH's commentslogin

This is a little different though. The intent was for that amount of shares. So the amount isn't in question, just the vesting schedule. While the schedule may be non-standard, it isn't beyond belief (like 4 days). Also, years to quarters isn't a single typo like punctuation.

No that’s just an example. Like I said, facts were unclear here but it seems like they had agreed something and then written down something different. Courts will often find a way to respect the first unless there was a real ambiguity.

But, he didn't dispute it at the time indicating the meeting of the minds was for the 4 year, not 4 quarter, schedule. Now, is that iron clad? no, but it goes to show this is not nearly open and shut because it's more "deliberately" wrong than a misplaced decimal

The illiteracy seems to carry straight into video production. There are way too many 15 minute videos for 4 lines of instructions.


Doesn't it mean "restrict competitors"?


Not at all. How do you come to that interpretation? It means restricting all competitors.


The real problem is that servers are now entirely the domain of the companies running the anti-cheats. We used to run the servers for most of these and could ban cheaters. But the game companies demand we play the game their way, not our way. We've really lost something.


You still need some brilliant mathematicians to invent new problems. AI is not yet good at inventing problems which are both novel and interesting.


I'm not sure how much manual review in these stores is for security rather than content and enforcement of business rules.

I imagine nearly all the security review is automated scans, and not the source of the delays.


I used to introduce myself to the cop who would work each wrestling tournament our teams were in. They always had a chill time at wrestling, and I asked them which sport was the worst. Basketball. Every single one of them said basketball without hesitation.


Baseball in particular has a problem with anger is the arguments. Like there is no argument without a hostile tone. Players/managers never seem to merely appeal a call -- they jump straight to harsh yelling.

Compare it to soccer where there is also a lot of whininess in the complaining about calls.

It's become accepted that vulgar, angry, disagreement is acceptable until it goes "too far".

Tantrums are just socially accepted in baseball, and some other sports.


This is one of the reasons I like rugby.

Probably being born from public schools, and teachers being the referees, they don't have to take any nonsense from players and can take the ball away from you, lose you ground you have gained, or card you if are abusive to the referee.

Abusive parents on the sidelines can result in sanctions on clubs.

Even if you think the referee made a bad call, it is never acceptable to be abusive to match officials.

It blows my mind the things I see in football they allow people to get away with.


I love how in rugby if two guys are going a little two hard at each other the referee will call them over along with their captains, and address the captains while these gigantic players stand there like children.

One other offshoot of rugby officiating is they will admit wrongs and they'll say things like "I didn't see that." Compare that to the NFL where the refs make a bad call and the league will back them up to the point of being ridiculous by reinterpreting the rules to make the officials right (see "not a catch").

Rugby is so refreshing.


> This assumes that mothers in the workforce earning (taxable) income is a benefit in and of itself.

I think it's more about whether the investment pays back and defrays the costs.


It's something you would have to be keeping up with as a mathematician, really.

Vaguely. It's describing connections between a number of other mathematics results than can be connected to prove FLT. I assume all the work described is being done to make the proof more presentable, smaller, basically "prettier".

It sounds like they established a minimum and maximum bounds for n in x^n + y^n = z^n, where one proof works for n greater than or equal to 17, and another proof for n < 37 (when prime).

I believe the case (remembering back 40 years here) n is even is very easy, and n is composite and odd slightly less so. Neither really being in the ballpark of what they describe here.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: