I just tried, but it turns out someone submitted a paid-only article to HN, so your proposal doesn't work. The first paragraph fades into a money-begging.
At the college I went to there was a class that involved solving differential equations in Simulink. The exams involved mostly creating diagrams on how the variables were related. The only prerequisite for that class was Calculus 2 so only a conceptual knowledge of Calculus was needed
It may still be not available / accessible in Israel under other laws.
> No footage of the police interrogation has ever been aired in Israel due to privacy laws, and it is unclear if the film will be shown in the country – certainly while Netanyahu's corruption trial continues at Jerusalem District Court.
I suspect this is about the two sections with light blue background and dark blue text. Yup, it's hard to read. And then that weird clashing green Contact button is jarring when hovered over them. The rest seems fine.
Never been a fan of the yellow highlighter look at the top, but it at least doesn't make the page unreadable. But the only other place I ever see that is on sites trying to sell snake-oil products. On one line like that, maybe it's not that bad, but I could see search engines ignoring sites that have any of the snake-oil text effects.
Not only does Reader Mode work beautifully, but, colour choice notwithstanding, the article's CSS styling is sufficiently vanilla that my own enhanced Reader Mode stylesheet (drop caps and a few other fiddly bits) works beautifully. That's often ... not ... the case.
Fidelity has long been known to be one of the owners of X; their markdowns on the value of their X holdings have long been the most common citation of how far X's value has plummeted under Musk's stewardship.
Is it any less of a "blue chip" stock than other holdings in that fund, which include securities like like Skyryse, Inc. Series B, MOD Super Fast Pizza Holdings LLC Series 3, and Alif Semiconductor Series C?
I mean, any competent lawyer suing Fidelity for misrepresenting the "Blue-Chip-ness" of the fund's holdings is going to list holdings like that as well.
Twitter is just the holding that's most likely to get noticed, not because it's the least "Blue Chip" of the holdings, but because it's the most likely to cause (arguably justified) moral outrage. The morality has little bearing on the justification for the case, but it might have a big impact on whether people are likely to pursue the case in the first place.
No, the point is that if the fund hasn't been sued for the past few decades of its existence for holding non-well known companies (or whatever your definition of "blue chip is"), they're probably not going to get sued for holding x holdings, inc.
I think that could be the point if the question was "Will the fund be sued for [...]?" but the question was "Can the fund be sued for [...]?", which likely was intended to ask if such a lawsuit could reasonably be expected to win.
It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
>It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
From the prospectus:
>Principal Investment Strategies
> [...]
> Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations.
Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
No. Whataboutism is an attempt to change the topic. "Why are you wasting time on A when B is so much more important?"
The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case."
(If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
> The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes.
...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1].
Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law.
IMO it was a pretty good gamble. Even if his mental decline seemed obvious, it wasn't obvious they would be prying X from his cold dead hands at all or nearly this late.
Yeah how does owning private stock work for those funds? Kind of interesting. For most funds don’t they constantly sell and buy each stock to rebalance it
There is vast number of different types of funds that invest in nearly anything you can imagine. Real estate, land(farmland and forrest), public stocks, bonds. Also why not private stocks.
ETFs traded on exchanges and index funds is just very special setups. Which don't prevent other forms of funds that is essentially piles of money given out for them to manage often with limitations of pulling it out.
This is how the hiring process already works at government agencies. You get a CJO (Conditional Job Offer) are able to start the clearance process and get the FJO (Final Job Offer) once you receive the clearance.
It is just a typical diet for losing weight quickly, i.e. a diet that provides only around 800 kcal/day, while providing normal quantities of proteins, essential fatty substances, vitamins and minerals, to avoid other health problems.
My impression is that the default recommendation from the literature is "Mediterranean diet with counseling from a certified nutritionist" and evidence of any other diet that works would help expand options for folks with pre-diabetes.
What I find interesting and different about this diet is that it's a total replacement of your existing diet. It doesn't involve calorie counting, food pyramids, or vague suggestions to eat "more vegetables", "healthy oils", or "less snacks".
I assume that you get a box in the mail with your food, marked for specific meals, and you can only eat what's in the box and nothing else. There is no deviation (unless you cheat) but no complaining about the cost of food or difficulty of preparation.
Also I expect the number of people who could follow this diet to be extremely low, but I also don't know how it would compare to the average dieting plan.
You need to restrict calorie intake significantly for 3 month period for metabolism to change for the desired result. Many people could not finish the program.
