bisby

joined 2 years ago
[–] bisby 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sorry, my phrasing of "not how it works" is more about willingness from the lender side and not "allowed" to. He couldn't even get a bond for for the reduced amount without going through a shady company. He's certainly not going to get 4 bonds.

use two or three surety companies, each taking, let’s say, a $50 or $75 million piece to total up to $175 million.

Even with split up bonds to reduce risk in a normal situation, the bonding company is going to assess risk based on the full cost of the bond. They personally only have to put up less money, so the "how much do i lose if everything goes wrong" scenario is less, but "how likely is it something goes wrong" involves "the person on trial for lying about finances doesn't actually have enough to cover the full bond, so perhaps that increases the odds of me getting my money back"

Why would you throw away $50 million dollars. It's "less risk" only because it's less money. But if you think he's shady enough that likely you never see the money again, then why put up any money, especially if you have to compete with others to get the payout.

If someone said "You can gamble $50 million or $400 million. If you win you get 5%, but the odds of winning are only 10%, and if you lose you only get back $10 million." You would obviously opt to gamble the $50 million. You want to lose less money. The payout isn't worth it given the odds. If you were then told "oh, you can just opt out and avoid the dumpster fire of a deal", you are going to choose to opt out. No amount of "it's less risk" will make this a good deal for a bonding company.

So yes, syndicating the bond is an option, no smart bonding company is going to touch this, which means even with syndicating it will be hard for him to find enough incompetent, shady, unlicensed bonding companies.

And to be clear, this is not me arguing in favor of why any amount of money was unfair to expect Trump to acquire. This is me pointing out why he's never going to get the money from legit sources because he's a financial dumpster fire, and they should just throw the book at him instead of continuously going easy on him.

edit:

But with Donald Trump bragging that he has $500 million cash in the bank, combined with the other assets we know he has in real estate

Trump bragging about made up numbers don't make anyone more confident about his assets. Both the value of his assets and how much stake in those assets is actually his is a thing he notoriously lies about. He's even been found guilty about lying about his finances I think.

If he actually had that money money just in the bank, none of this would be an issue, but the thing is... it's not true.

[–] bisby 12 points 10 months ago

The archlinux-keyring package will install a few gpg keys.

But also, the AUR also uses gpg keys to validate things.

Just searching the AUR for one of the repos that Jaffa linked to in another comment...

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=librespot

Here is the PKGBUILD. Note line 24:

validpgpkeys=('EC57B7376EAFF1A0BB56BB0187F5FDE8A56219F4') ## Roderick van Domberg

And I'm sure if you got through the AUR there are plenty of packages that use this

Many AUR helpers (like paru, or yay, etc), will either auto download these keys for you, or prompt you. Even if you were to build this pkgbuild by hand, unless you removed that line, it would require you to import the key for the makepkg to work. So "how does a fresh arch install wind up with GPG keys that I didn't manually import?" ... the answer is AUR helpers most likely (or you did it manually for a makepkg and just forgot).

It's also worth pointing out that GPG handles signing things, but also signature verification. These are all public keys in your system. Having public keys that have been used for signature verification is perfectly normal and kind of the point. If you had Roderick's private key that would be weird.

[–] bisby 3 points 10 months ago

That's valid, but even then, a $120m bond is less risk that 4x companies supplying $120m bonds. When the time comes to pay out and you need to get your collateral, if there is only $150m available to actually pay out, you get yours, vs having to split it multiple ways, or otherwise not getting a payout at all.

And that's assuming you can get 4x companies to even throw in $120m. He is so unreliable that had to get an unlicensed company to even get that much, so I doubt he's going to find 4x legit companies to team up.

But then again, requiring the full amount should still just be enforced. If no one wants to provide bond, thats his problem, not the court's. I certainly don't get to say "Well I can't get bond" and get to have the amount lowered. If I say that, I just don't get to appeal.

[–] bisby 3 points 10 months ago

I didn't realize that. I use a .xyz for a lot of my personal stuff and didn't realize this. I wanted basically .website ... i didnt want .com or .org or anything with tld that meant something, so xyz felt nice. Also, the domain I wanted with any popular tld was insanely expensive and i got my xyz for cheap when it was brand new (not for 1 dollar though).

Maybe I need to look into new domains, but I probably will just stick with it since its primarily for personal use anyway.

[–] bisby 23 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Thats not how loans necessarily work though. If I go to a bank and ask for $100m, but they see I already owe $350m to other lenders, they'll say no, because they know they arent getting paid back until after the other 3. So if they think trump has $450m in assets, just give him whole amount, and if they don't think he has that much, any money theyre giving him is just being thrown away.

This is a guy notorious for lying about his assets and not paying debts. Even giving him $125m is a bad idea, but the odds of getting paid back get even worse if you arent first in line.

[–] bisby 7 points 10 months ago

Caveat: This is all written assuming the message is being written on a computer with a real keyboard. But if we're assuming this is written on a phone, then my analysis doesn't apply, but then again, writing a java program to execute in your messaging app is also a terrible idea. Which means we're suspending disbelief, so I choose to believe that a computer keyboard and shortcuts are available.

Type the phrase once. Select all. copy, paste, paste (the first paste replaces what you already have highlighted, the second paste adds a second copy). Now you have 2. Control + A, Control + C, Control + V.. Now you have 4.

It will take you only 7 cycles of this get 128*, you only need to copy/paste it one by one if you want to send each message separately. and even then, it's would purely be copy the original, then paste, send, paste, send, paste send, paste, send.

Assuming you can hold down control and just hit ACVV 7 times, that's 28 keystrokes. I'd bet I can get that done in 5 seconds or less (i tried it, it's less than that), so now I only save 5 seconds. Which means I only get 25 seconds to write the script. Which he chose to write in java for some reason?

[print("I'm sorry") for x in range(0, 100)] is actually a script I could write in less than 25 seconds.

*And I disagree with the "reason 4" given. She didn't say "exactly 100 times" she said "100 times before I forgive you" and to me, "before" implies >= and not ==. So if you drop it in 128 times, that exceeds the criteria. No one has ever rescinded forgiveness for receiving extra apologies.

[–] bisby 3 points 10 months ago

In my ethics in engineering class, we spent a lot of time talking about things like the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapsing. The takeaway for me was "Depending on what you are doing, people might die if you are too confidently doing things the wrong way."

Most people, even a lot of engineers, don't have lives on the line in their day to day. Things means that most people don't have the "What if I am wrong about this and people die?" part of their brain firing 24/7. For most people, the "consequences of getting things wrong" means either a lecture from their boss, or literally nothing. When people never have to face consequences for being wrong, they feel very empowered to be wrong.

[–] bisby 16 points 10 months ago

Its enough for me too. But not everyone has the same use case and environment. I definitely see why someone would want this.

What I disagree with is that it needs to communicate to the internet to do this. It adds delay and potential for outage if your internet is out. But they do this so they can force you to get their app and milk you for extra data to sell. Internet capable smart devices are to harvest data not grant features. Features could be done better by ZigBee and a hub, but that doesnt grant the device a way to phone home

[–] bisby 89 points 10 months ago

Oh good, if that is all true, you wont have to change anything to be compliant with new laws and should have no issue with them.

[–] bisby 57 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Having a "don't pull me over, im on your side 😉" sticker makes perfect sense if you're an idiot who is doing things worth being pulled over for.

[–] bisby 44 points 10 months ago (5 children)

The original is an ad for a Posturite mouse. Then reddit added the mouse. then someone else added saddam.

[–] bisby 2 points 10 months ago

Interesting. I upvoted because I saw this 11 years ago and it made me nostalgic. 11 years is a huge gap in repost time.

view more: ‹ prev next ›