Ditto. Works as is on Firefox 80. No need to edit the URL. It is however not clickable, but you can select it and click "open in new tab" and it opens the PDF just fine.
That's weird. I'm working on a MacBook on FireFox 77 with >50 tabs and it's slightly warm at best. I usually am plugged in when doing something like this so I can't comment on battery drain compared to Chrome
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Don't most savers put their money in banks who then have to redeploy it to make a profit? In fact, isn't it more useful to have banks utilize this capital instead of a crowds of ordinary people moving small sums? Banks aggregating wealth to be redeployed seems more efficient.
The Fed just cut the banks' reserve requirements to zero, which means they don't require any deposits in order to make loans anymore. They have no use for your money. That's why you may have to pay them to hold it for you.
My understanding of the reserve requirements were that they set how much of the total amount deposited the banks had to hold on to at any given time. Setting the requirement to zero means that banks can deploy all of the capital they have in loans. If anything, shouldn't this be the other way around? They want more deposits because they can use the full amount instead of say 90%(holding on to a 10% reserve) or whatever the number was and make more money while paying savers the same amount. Or are you relating this to interest rates going to zero which seems like a better point for why banks wouldn't need deposits? Though the amount of interest savers get from banks is close to zero anyways right? So it still seems to me that banks want as many people deposited with them as possible since they can now use all of the money given to them.
Suppose you take your $5000 in cash into the bank and deposit it. They put the cash in their vault and credit your account with $5000. Now they have 100% reserves.
Alice, Bob and Carol come into the bank and each take out a $5000 loan. The bank credits each of their accounts with $5000, but there is still only $5000 in their vault, so now they have 25% reserves. As long as the reserve requirement is below 25%, this is fine. If the reserve requirement was 30%, they couldn't make that many loans.
With a 0% reserve requirement, they could loan your $5000 to a million different people and have 0.000001% reserves and still be allowed because 0.000001% is more than 0%. They could send you away and the bank manager could deposit a dollar and they could make unlimited loans from it. They have no use for your money.
The government should be in the business of fighting predatory pricing. Based on the other comments that people have a very hard time figuring out how much they would be paying(significant legal jargon obfuscation) it seems like people are being "forced"(as in no alternative) into contracts where they don't have a full understanding of what they are signing/paying. That seems pretty predatory to me
That's not alleged here at all. "People have a very hard time figuring out how much they would be paying" no, what's being said is people are having a hard time reading the documents submitted to the regulator. If you want to know how much you'll pay, just get a quote from the insurer directly.
I guess it's the trade off between backwards compatibility and readability/correctness/maintainability. Both languages will have technical debt overtime. In my opinion, I would much rather have to rarely update python scripts in exchange to for peace of mind that I can fix/update the script as need be. In my experience, *sh scripts can be fragile and hard to ensure correctness.
Having migrated something recently from python2 to python3, I'll take bash. I actually ported two of the three scripts to bash, and the third one I reluctantly moved to python3 (I needed python-pil). String handling in python3 in my opinion is a tire fire compared to bash.
With all of the improvements to static and run-time analysis that we see within compilers like -fsanitize, will it ever get to the point were tools like GDB become obsolete? It seems to me that as more work goes into this, it will become very hard for gdb/valgrind/... to compete with the full power/knowledge available to a compiler.
It seems like there is a big difference between a "mathematical certainty that certain bugs will not occur" if you play by the rules and just be a better programmer so that you don't write errors. Not that you won't have bugs in Rust but it seems like we should move towards having our tooling do more of the heavy lifting in ensuring correctness. I don't believe you will ever have the bug count drop to zero. I do believe in mathematical certainties though.
