FTRFNK

FTRFNK t1_jed195u wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in the sad reality behind those loss porn you like to see by jposemescouilles

I don't mean to be too much of a dick but messing up a comma, period, or a run on sentence is a grammar error. Using the complete wrong word that means something not even remotely the same is not a grammar error, it's a fundamental regard error. A missed comma or period makes it annoying to read, but a wrong word can make it impossible to understand, flatly incorrect, or even completely void in a legal document.

0

FTRFNK t1_jed05t1 wrote

Reply to $FRC Trade idea by Famous_War5848

Ooof, I went down a rabbit hole about their preferred stock and you better understand what you're getting into. It's non-cumulative redeemable. Meaning if they miss a dividend they aren't obligated to pay any missed dividends and redeemable means they are redeemable at a price set in their prospectus at or beyond a specific date. Looking at this is super interesting but also incredibly boring because to know what you're getting into you need to read the prospectus and understand the terms. Interesting though in that the redeemable price is set in stone in the prospectus and unless they go bankrupt they can't redeem it for any less. There is also like 5 current sets of preferred at different dividend payout rates. I, H I know for sure and like 3 others.

I need to really look into it more, BUT if they don't go out of business looks like a guaranteed eventual 4x because I'm pretty sure the prospectus set the redeem rate of all the currently issued preferred stock in the 20's. With that said I'm a complete novice in this area and could be wrong. You'd have to read and jnderstand the prospectus.

I think the play would be to find the highest dividend rate within a reasonable redeemable window (I is redeemable at or beyond June 30 2023 for example, I believe) and buy those because they will be redeemed first when interest rates go down and they can issue a new set at a lower rate. Again, this is a first looksie, novice take.

Also, you're senior to common stock but junior to bondholders. You may get something in the event of going under, but depends on a few factors.

8

FTRFNK t1_jecupnz wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in the sad reality behind those loss porn you like to see by jposemescouilles

I hope law school got you paid well because you're clearly a regard in any other area or understanding anything about how the market works or how corporations raise money, grant equity, and pass value to shareholders. Also, I really hope english isn't your first language because it makes me doubt you actually got paid as a lawyer. I'm sure you had to draft something in writing? I really hope you didn't mess up which with witch in any legal documents.

Here's a video to help you, seems like it's appropriate for your level:

https://youtu.be/GnJCOof2HJk

4

FTRFNK t1_j623fof wrote

Reply to comment by Nervous-Newt848 in BioGPT: Generative Pre-trained Transformer for Biomedical Text Generation and Mining by PaperCruncher

This is my question too.

I am stupid for not learning more about coding but can this be locally run? Seems like a big model from what I can tell. Is the github code the whole model?

Maybe I just need to dust off the old learning chops to answer all those questions myself but I'd alsp love to give this a try in some form as soon as possible.

1

FTRFNK t1_iwx3oae wrote

Reply to comment by YaAbsolyutnoNikto in In First, Scientists Use CRISPR for Personalized Cancer Treatment by tonymmorley

Have you bought a new car recently? We can't get "used gene therapies" at a discount price. A new phone is $300 for the lowest functioning model near the top is over a grand. Otherwise your locked into an unfavorable contract with a business to get it for free (where they more than make up for it by gouging you on service). I could keep going down this list but yes, cars ARE for the wealthy, same with anything but the absolute oldest/most basic phones, computers. In many modern instances those cheap items are literally unable to do many modern necessary things. Buy a 10 year old computer and try to do a video call for a job interview. Yes, there are many many people that can't afford an x ray or have to wait sometimes months to find out they should have been treated earlier. Do you live under a rock?

−1

FTRFNK t1_iwlmrys wrote

Reply to comment by gynoidgearhead in A typical thought process by Kaarssteun

Lol I see the person you're responding to lurking on all these "futurism" subreddits trying to leap to capitalisms defense at any critique. Hilarious how they're happy to fight harmless strawmen and spout clearly semi-to-fully uninformed rhetoric but when an actual informed commentor like yourself comes along and gives some actual context, analysis, and links data they fold like one of those whacky inflatable arm things in a light breeze (that is to say, easily and with little fight). I have engaged with this person in multiple posts as well, and it gets old to engage with, so it makes me happy to see others also step up to swat down such hackneyed commentary.

4

FTRFNK t1_iuu9ara wrote

Reply to comment by flourishingvoid in Removing plastic pollution from water using nanoparticles by filosoful

Not really futuristic, surprising to say from a physicist to think literally manipulating living organisms to do a specific task is easier than making an inorganic small thing from minerals and then taking them out with a magnet.

Seems pretty simple to me. People have these weird conceptions about anything with a "nano" in front of it, particularly anything "nanoparticle".

Nanoparticle is literally just very very small, well, particle. This is quite literally just a very small iron oxide particle with a charged coating. What's futuristic about thar? There are iron molecules and oxygen molecules all around us. What's futuristic about using a giant magnet? If people cared about microplastics back in the day, we could have done this like 30 years ago.

2