Debian aims for rock solid stability
To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).
So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”
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.
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.
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.
Interesting. I upvoted because I saw this 11 years ago and it made me nostalgic. 11 years is a huge gap in repost time.
I was at a track meet once and the lady running high jump was doing a horrible job. She was finally figuring out what she was doing and said : OK, we got this. Next height will be 5’12"
The cross platform friend requests bugs mean I still havent been able to play with the friends who convinced me to buy the game in the first place. But yeah, otherwise quite fun.
Its 100x better of a starship troopers game than the actual starship troopers game that came out last year
Its also free to play.
Or as some streamers say: its a $60 game with an incredibly generous free trial.
Because of how starlink works, they have to aim satellites specifically at areas for data to flow. They have the ability to turn regions on and off (ie, satellites over China).
They know exactly where the transceivers are and based on movement patterns, probably which side they are on.
Unless he is feeding that position data to the Ukrainian military, he knows exactly who is using them and letting it happen. He didnt sell them the dishes, but he lets them be used.
bluffing a threat to the plane by snapchatting your friend would be a weird move. No one on the plane even knew a “threat” was made.
It seems like “we have no details at all about the threat (because it wasn’t actually credible), so let’s just be prepared for every situation” is the logic.
But that wasnt the threat. They were going to stop him from blowing up the plane by… blowing up the plane.
I switched to FreshRSS which works just as well, and doesn’t have a toxic dev
You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.
It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”