> [A] trading facility that— (A) permits trading— (i) by or on behalf of a person that is not an eligible contract participant; or (ii) by persons other than on a principal-to-principal basis; or (B) has adopted (directly or through another nongovernmental entity) rules that— (i) govern the conduct of participants, other than rules that govern the submission of orders or execution of transactions on the trading facility; and (ii) include disciplinary sanctions other than the exclusion of participants from trading.
And 7 USC § 1a(51)(A) defines a "trading facility" as
> [A] person or group of persons that constitutes, maintains, or provides a physical or electronic facility or system in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade agreements, contracts, or transactions— (i) by accepting bids or offers made by other participants that are open to multiple participants in the facility or system; or (ii) through the interaction of multiple bids or multiple offers within a system with a pre-determined non-discretionary automated trade matching and execution algorithm.
(7 USC § 1a(51)(B) then follows with some exceptions to that definition.)
In short—an "organized exchange" is defined as a type of "trading facility". To count as a trading facility", whether of the "organized exchange" type or not, you must either accept bids or offers from other participants yourself or else deterministically match and execute those bids and offers.
Right. Another way to see this is that for a general (possibly non-Abelian) group, the inverse of xy is y⁻¹x⁻¹ (because xyy⁻¹x⁻¹ = x1x⁻¹ = xx⁻¹ = 1 [using "1" for the identity here, as is typical for general groups], or more colloquially, "the inverse operation of putting on your socks and shoes is taking off your shoes and socks"). For an Abelian group, y⁻¹x⁻¹ = x⁻¹y⁻¹, and we're done.
In a negotiation, the goal is to reach an accommodation suitable for both parties. If the web developer doesn't want to set up his server on port 80 to serve HTTP, that's his business. Your user agent is still working for you, when it negotiates with the server what protocols it will accept. (It also negotiates a content type for the response; and if all the server has is static HTML, it's not your user agent's fault if what you get is HTML, even if you really wanted some other format. Take it up with the web developer, if you want the data in some other format. The browser is just doing its best for you.)
Your argument makes sense in one narrow circumstance which is not the typical HSTS setup: if the server is serving the site with plain HTTP on port 80 (and not just a redirect to the HTTPS version of the page), and also has a HTTPS version with HSTS headers. (So that the first time you visit the HTTPS version, your browser will insist on taking you to that version every time.)
Asterisk magazine (https://asteriskmag.com/) is the only site I know of that does the thing that the author couldn't find an example of with a progress bar that includes section headings (on hover) and thus shows your progress through the table of contents. On mobile, where there is less space, it falls back to just being an ordinary progress indicator.
> There aren't nearly enough capacity in the judicial branch to handle all that work.
Then appoint more Article 3 judges. It could even be the same people who are now "administrative judges"—but take them out of the executive branch hierarchy, and give them the independence that the constitution requires judges to have.
There are about half a million minutes in a year, so 50 million seconds is a year and two thirds. At the rate of saving 50 million seconds a day, in a year you'll have saved around 608 years—which is only a dozen lifetimes if a lifetime is around 50 years. Still, that's a pretty close approximation for an off-the-cuff guess.
I'm sure he'd have planned or thought about this before hand.
Steve's famous "computers are a bicycle for the mind" was refined over a long period of time and countless interviews. We only hear about the one time where he perfected it, where it made an impression. Many other instances are on YouTube, in one you can see him trying out different alternative lines.
The problem is that while it's an impressively close approximation for an off-the-cuff guess (at least if we charitably translate his "dozens"/"dozen" to 12), to the extent it was pre-planned it's a terrible approximation. ~50 years as a lifetime is the right order of magnitude (and thus a very good result for a guess), but is too far off to be any good if precalculated.
Nothing in Rust requires you to use Cargo. It's really convenient to have a good build system like Cargo—but if you like C style of manually invoking the compiler, rustc can do that too.
Rust is no worse by bundling Cargo. It strictly dominates the alternative, which would be to just ship rustc and allow the user to pick whatever build system they like. You still can pick your favorite build system; but if you don't have a particularly strong preference, Cargo is a very good default.
When it comes to the systemd logs, this is kind of what the -x flag to journalctl does (or tries to do.)
Having detailed human-level descriptions of what's going on and how to fix it is great. But you also don't want to drown out any important details under waves of verbose text.
The solution, then, is to show the extra detail only when it's requested with the -x flag.
This works pretty well, all things considered. The detailed messages are fine, but they could be better—but that's probably always going to be true. It's a start, anyway.
> The question suggests that you can somehow give yourself a new title which usually isn't true for people who work for someone else.
> In some places to get a senior developer title, you just need to ask. Your manager then tells HR to change one cell in a spreadsheet and congrats - you're a senior software engineer.
That's the "somehow". There is a very strong sense in which whole "asking your manager" thing is a mere formality—it's very unlikely to be declined if the title you're asking for is remotely appropriate (and, to be honest, often even if it isn't.) Your manager is going to be very happy that he or she has a way of keeping you happy and rewarding you for your work _without_ it coming out of their budget (the way a raise or a bonus would.)
So (at least in companies of a certain size, where this is more or less the level of formality attached to job titles), a title _is_ something you can decide to give yourself—yes, you'll want to run it by your manager to get them to ratify it for you, but that doesn't take much. Once you've decided that you want to be called by the new title, the rest is just paperwork to get it formalized.
> There is a very strong sense in which whole "asking your manager" thing is a mere formality—it's very unlikely to be declined if the title you're asking for is remotely appropriate (and, to be honest, often even if it isn't.)
That's interesting, I really didn't think that it's that common. In many companies this ranges from very difficult to completely impossible and certainly isn't just a formality. I guess that we have just been exposed to very different types of company/management.
That's very likely true. The context I was talking about probably rounds to "companies with <100 employees", or perhaps at order of magnitude larger at most. I'd imagine that it's quite different in organizations bigger than that. (Not that it's _quite_ accurate to round attitude off to size, but it's probably close enough.)
> [A] trading facility that— (A) permits trading— (i) by or on behalf of a person that is not an eligible contract participant; or (ii) by persons other than on a principal-to-principal basis; or (B) has adopted (directly or through another nongovernmental entity) rules that— (i) govern the conduct of participants, other than rules that govern the submission of orders or execution of transactions on the trading facility; and (ii) include disciplinary sanctions other than the exclusion of participants from trading.
And 7 USC § 1a(51)(A) defines a "trading facility" as
> [A] person or group of persons that constitutes, maintains, or provides a physical or electronic facility or system in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade agreements, contracts, or transactions— (i) by accepting bids or offers made by other participants that are open to multiple participants in the facility or system; or (ii) through the interaction of multiple bids or multiple offers within a system with a pre-determined non-discretionary automated trade matching and execution algorithm.
(7 USC § 1a(51)(B) then follows with some exceptions to that definition.)
In short—an "organized exchange" is defined as a type of "trading facility". To count as a trading facility", whether of the "organized exchange" type or not, you must either accept bids or offers from other participants yourself or else deterministically match and execute those bids and offers.
reply