I enjoy my 2013 Boxster, take the roof down, release clutch, engage the first, switch gears, enjoy the ride. I respect that Porsche found a way to stay in business selling SUVs that I will never buy because it 8s a travesty, but this goes too far. I don't want even to think about an EV Porsche, never mind drive one or charge one... this entire story is one f up after another, all piled up on top of each other....

If a company is unable to get rid of dead weight, eventually there will be fewer companies and if this means fewer people are treated as human resources then more people will have to be treated as welfare burden.

Why not? I automate more and more within my system, what I used to do by hand and then hired someone to keep doing by hand and then hired a developer to automate no longer needs to be done by hand, why should I not be able to enjoy the results of this innovation, which means cutting cost and delivering the same value with automation?

Innovation is not necessarily in inventing a new engine, it is quite possibly just another batch job.

The cop had it covered with a drinking bird at the keyboard. Simpsons strike again!

It's like there are at least two layers of funny money accounting going on here.

First, you have the strange way that people equate market cap with value. There's no guarantee that holding shares with a current market value of $X will eventually return $X or more in dividend payments plus maybe some eventual disposal of assets, and these are usually the only tangible values involved. A market cap based on ludicrously high P/E ratio will be high, but trading those shares is like trading Bitcoin: it starts to look more like a Ponzi scheme than a genuine value-based investment.

Second, even the market cap is mostly theoretical here, because any shares held can't be freely traded on an open market. The asset is almost completely illiquid other than occasional anomalies like the secondary sale we're talking about. The first IPO of an AI unicorn could be the pin that bursts the bubble.

It's the difference between being one of the AI unicorns that doesn't actually make any real profit yet and is largely funded based on hype and hope, and being a supplier like Nvidia that is actually being paid real money (funded by all the AI investment) and has a P/E ratio that is high but not off-the-charts stupid.

Is it a "mandate" or an expressed preference. If people have actually been ordered to RTO then it's reasonable to expect that failure to comply may lead to retrospective punishment even if it's not being punished immediately.

Not quite.

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth [of Australia], and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.

(My emphasis and gloss). Had NZ chosen to be part of Australia it would have been a state, but since it didn't it isn't.

I'm confused. The title, the summary, and even the fine article all say "UK bookshops" but the "Locate a store" feature on bookshop.org only has shops in the USA. Huh?

agreed, asking for credentials is too much and providing them is really stupid for many reasons. I have to say though, these landlords are definitely doing more to ensure that their tenants can afford their rent than the banks were doing before the housing market crash.

By writing. It's in the title.

Just like a million or more of others, who have done the same, I have personally, singlehandedly used the same exact principles and techniques to construct in a dynamic manner, not only visual representations of parent/child relationships as visual trees, but created entire systems that relied on these concepts for both, reporting and control.

I am absolutely capable of displaying my work, results of my work, people using result of my work, my work used in production on daily basis. I built a retail management system back in 2009-2013 and it is in use today as well, where data was described as master product (a representation of what a product is), an actual product instance (sku), incoming product orders and incoming product order items, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. it is large and complex enough to spend many hours to go over it.

In any case, to be able to see data from all sorts of different perspectives, to analyze it, to understand what must be ordered, what sells, what doesn't, to filter data, to report, to control it for purposes of ordering, changing prices, creating lists of discounts, everything that a retail chain needs to do to be able to survive in a retail chain market.

A master product can be labeled with a record called 'label'. A label can be typified, because we may want to create *dynamic* representations and views. So for example labels can be of type 'supplier' or of type 'brand' or of type 'subbrand', etc.

A filtering system was created that allowed *LEVELS* of filters to be arranged, creating *DYNAMIC* ordering of *NODES* within *TREES* of labels and then master products or product instances (sku) could be selected from the database in a way that corresponded to the tree representation of the labels.

So a tree of labels became a template, with levels of the nodes being grouped by label types and then the products were arranged based on this template and all of a sudden you could use this grouping to understand the flow of products and the flow of money, purchases (incoming orders), sales (receipts), numbers of receipts and of individual products bought or returned or lost or whatever.

On the webpage or in an excel file this data was represented in either table format (very very similar to the figures and pictures attached in this story) or in an actual *TREE* format, where one could drill down as deep as needed.

I kid you not, I would be perfectly happy to participate in any lawsuit against any patent office or a company to prevent any such patent from being issued. ANY FUCKING PROGRAMMER would figure this out if they are mildly awake or even slight less than creative, it is absolute nonsense that we even have to entertain a possibility that this stuff can be patented, this is bullshit. Search trees, sort trees, visual trees, whatever trees, they are obvious simple data constructs and must be left alone without assholes trying to make money on suing people for stuff that is as obvious as the air we all breath (together with these assholes, unfortunately).

Before 2009-2013 I had a variety of projects, where trees were used as well, I built silly things like XML file editors, fucking XML to describe logic that was then converted by a piece of code I built to generate java code from that XML. The XML was a fucking tree, I built an editor so that an insurance company rep could fill in the data within XML nodes to describe logic (don't ask me why, this was 2001-2002 or something).

Before that I had to work with data sets from AT&T that were loaded from mainframes in order to create normal parseable file sets that were sent to rebiller companies, with the records that were at some point represented as tree nodes in levels. That was 1997 I think. Fuck. Before that I wrote tools for myself to study languages, English and French, long ago, where sentences and words in different languages were structured as tree nodes, with multiple crossing tree structures corresponding to different grammar rules.

Fucking hell.

that is the point of having a family, you work and make sure your family is provided for, your children carry on once you are gone. That is why modern socialists hate inheritance as well

Glad to see that /. is still good for the occasional and perfectly-executed Star Trek reference.

This particular title is copy-pasted from the article, so if it is a length limit it's not /.'s fault.