As a Norwegian, yeah you're not wrong. We have a lot of challenges to overcome as the oil age is coming to an inevitable end, although there are many here tho refuse to see the writing on the wall.
I used to be "anti Tesla", then I tried one, and now I own one.
Teslas are disruptive - they're not what you expect of cars. I will never look the same at a car again. Tell this to anyone who doesn't understand, and they simply won't understand what you're going on about.
Over a year in; driving my Model X still makes me smile.
Just like many physical and non-physical (software) products, very often, literally nobody reviews/verifies/checks them.
Google will learn from this mistake, and next time they'll use a fancy MEMS microphone or a similar technology and place it inside a semiconductor package.
When do you think such a feat will be discovered by independent researchers? Probably never.
There's also the reality that they can simply change the components/layout without ever telling anybody about it.
People just keep buying the same boxes without even being aware that the hardware inside these boxes might be completely different revisions.
Who's to say that future batches of Nest won't have cameras added for "future use"? Who's gonna go through the effort of checking every fresh batch of Nests for revisions like that? And what are the chances of actually catching it when it's only rolled out in small batches?
ETNs carry credit risk as they generally dont actually own the underlying asset. Instead, the ETN's issuer promises to stand by the value of the underlying asset.
Historically this was not an issue but the collapse of Lehman Brothers, AIG-FP and others made it clear that owning assets is preferable to someone making a promise to give you those assets.
You still don't directly own the assets in the case of an ETF as far as I am aware? You own shares in the ETF and the ETF owns the assets so I imagine in the case of liquidation you're below creditors? Someone more familiar with the concept would need to elucidate.
In addition, a synthetic ETF the company doesn't own the underlying exactly (but some portfolio which perfectly replicates it) - which is again slightly different from a Note I think but still has counterparty risk in there.
You are right, in the case of ETFs. The parent is describing ETFs but my comment (the grandparent) was describing ETNs in response to the great-grandparent which is also speaking about ETNs. Phew!
OK -- to clarify my original comment -- ETNs DO NOT own the asset. The issuer of the ETN promises value equal to the asset, but that promise is worth only as much as the Issuer actually is good for. In cases like Lehman's bankruptcy, the promise would need to go through bankruptcy like any other promise. Thus, ETNs are like debt linked to an asset index rather than an interest rate/index. So not only are you exposed to the risk that underlying/linked asset loses value ("market risk"), but you are also exposed to the risk that the underlying/linked asset does fine yet the Issuer cannot make good on their promise ("counterparty risk").
With ETFs, on the other hand, the fund (and hence you) generally own the asset, but even then, some ETFs are slightly different in that they actually own derivatives on the assets such as futures. They are almost the same since futures are daily-settled. ETNs are not daily-settled thus carry longer-term counterparty risk.
How to create readable code that explains itself should have more focus. It's not just about naming classes, methods and variables, but also about structuring your code. It's quite possible to create a method with the perfect name that is over nine thousand lines long and difficult to understand.
This can be very subjective, but code complexity metrics can help identify problem areas. I find that areas with high complexity often benefit from refactoring into smaller pieces making it more readable and self explanatory.
If you can't structure your code to explain itself, perhaps commenting isn't such a bad idea, at least it would be a record of your thoughts at the time, until someone else comes a long and hopefully cleans it up.
Just to echo what has already been brought up here, sometimes it's not the what that is important, but the why. Reading the code is unlikely to explain the why for quite a few complex things.
> Okay, I have to question this. Why is a browser vendor spending precious time and money adding a mailbox to their browser?
Because Jon von Tetzchner (founder of Opera and Vivaldi) thinks having it in the browser is superior to having it as a separate app. It used to be like this in Opera as well. His goal is to provide an application with more value than just the stripped down browsers you see these days.
this really is the reason. He wants to remake Opera and is pretty clear about that. I never used Opera's email client so I don't really care but I know there are a lot of people who do.
> I always wondered why, for the longest time, they thought competing with Chrome and Firefox was a good idea
Because Jon von Tetzschner was and is passionate about building a good browser, and didn't really care that the odds were (are?) against him.
But when Opera is brought up, the focus is always on the Desktop browser. However, the money was always in devices - Opera has traditionally been really big on a plethora of devices.
Also, Opera both on desktop and mobile, has long been big in markets other than the US, especially eastern Europe.
