AWS took limited data retention very seriously starting around 2015. Before that it was reasonable controls and a strong culture preserving customer privacy. After 2015ish they started implementing strong controls, to where service team members cant feasibly access customer data in the service they run, and account termination starts a legit data removal process (“GDPR compliance”). They also take the terms of service and user agreement (“your data” etc) very seriously in general.
Hah. I actually had opendirectory, OSX clients, and CentOS/RedHat clients running krb5 NFS off of netapp filers circa … 2008? Lots and lots of NFS in the (mansfield) hardware org at that time. I think krb on osx started getting hard around 2010 when they moved tickets and other credentials to a process aware in memory store. Became difficult to use TGT or machine identity for automation.
And yes, Im sure theres a very lonely radar bug for this. But even MM of revenue wont fix “edge cases” like this.
Nice! Awesome coincidence, happy to hear from you. I feel like that team was somehow both the tail end of the system admin hacker era and on the forefront of what would become “devops” and system management infra. And now, cloud… cloud, as far as the eye can see.
You're conflating operational efficacy and strategic incompetence.
Operationally, and tactically AFAIK, the US has been dominant. Strategically it appears to be a massive failure, mainly because there was no actual achievable strategic goals going in to this war. Read some of the reporting on JCS advice and cabinet level decision making leading up to the war. It's illuminating (again and again) of the risks on overly loyal advisors and getting the advice you want, not the advice you need.
FYI "convertible" instruments aren't new, I suspect its just unusual phrasing that's tripping up your search. "Convertible bonds" or "convertible securities"
are more common terms IME. Either way it's typically a bond/security that can be held _or_ converted at a preset strike price. Eg a convertible bond has a slightly discounted coupon (interest) for the holder. The bond can be converted to a fixed number of shares (equity), effectively at at a pre defined price/share. If the per-share price appreciates the bond holder can convert at capture the vallue above their strike price. If the associated equity falls (or doesnt appreciate) the bond holder 1) holds to maturity 2) is senior to equity holders for recovery.
In short, the allbirds financiers are taking a slightly reduced interest payment in exchange for the option to capture stock price appreciation if the gamble finds a greater fool.
Weird, why wouldnt this fantastic startup want to report on their performance in a standardized and accountable manner for six months after collecting public money to pay out insiders and “sponsors”?
Surely they wouldnt mind bragging about their fantastic GAAP P&L in their filing docs. Maybe its the pesky quiet period theyre trying to avoid, so they can be even more transparent about finances and equity holders.
Dude. SPACs are structurally a _terrible_ idea for any non-privileged investor. The sponsors 20-25% comp, the early warrants, etc. All of those costs are taken out of the bag-holder, sorry “investors”, expected value. The entire thing is setup to maximise info asymmetry and perverse incentives for the sponsors at the cost of bag holders. The “shitty tactics” _are why SPACs exist_.
Even so, VRT has gone up 2000% since it SPACC’ed. RKLB was also a SPAC. A SPAC is a just a way to satisfy regulations as a pre-revenue early stage company. Most early stage companies fail, and that’s fine.
If such a company succeeds and still retail investors, don’t get paid back, I would consider that fraudulent, but that’s not the case with SPAC’s. I would like to see SPAC deals be better to investors as opposed to banning them entirely.
I worked at a previous listed company where a single $6MM order of hardware being pushed out a week made quarterly p&l positive. Im absolutely sure the same situation occurred every other quarter as well in some part of the business I didnt see.
this kind of deal timeline management happens at all companies. this is why contracts get structured in complicated pricing structures to make it easier for revenue recognition to occur in the quarter it’s supposed to. the timeline can move from 3 months to 6 it’s still going to be a huge focus area for a lot of
people at every company
This is why Netflix broke up the final season of Stranger Things in such a weird way... they wanted new episodes at the end of quarters, to have good subscriber numbers for the quarter report
For the gp: the other side of the risk/reward coin is that private credit has limited upside. They're going to get the margin between the private 6/7/8/9/10% loan and their funding source + admin. Whereas PE can go “to the moon” if things work out.
Yes. Nat gas -> ammonia -> urea. Theres some efficiencies that vary by site but its a hundred year old process of a true commodity. The price per therm _is_ the input.
Was listening to a fertilizer analyst the other day. She thought corn:urea was the better comparison. Nitrogen is the cost of marginal yields. And corn:urea shows the farmer being squeezed between their commodity output price and the required input cost. At some point its just not cost effective to grow corn, so you go soy, and reduced supply should pish up future prices. Oh look! More commodity price inflation pressure!
reply