As self-proclaimed hackers who are part of a community whose core values include curiosity and critical thinking, we do ourselves, and the world, a massive disservice by closing our eyes and ears to important information just because it's political in nature.
Hacker culture and fascism are antithetical, and we should all be acutely aware when the current regime moves towards violence to squash dissent.
i know the site moniker is "hacker news" but the tech industry at large is the furthest thing from being anything resembling a collective of hackers...
The actual technical thought leaders aren’t necessarily representative of the tech industry at large. Id like to think at least some with a hacker ethos have made it to decision making positions - and hacker news is a spot for em to congregate.
Eh, I think most of the folks here are, whatever else, "temporarily embarrassed venture capitalists". That certainly seems consistent with fascists and with the tenor of much of the discourse I read here.
I've seen the term "request coalescing" used to refer to a technique to minimise the impact of cache stampedes. Protects your backend systems from huge spikes in traffic caused by a cache entry expiring.
It's (arguably) against site rules. It doesn't gratify ones intellectual curiosity and is something they'd cover on the news. There's a large uptick in political content this year, and I agree US news is crazy right now, but this site requires posting discipline or it'll become no different to a subreddit.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
It implicitly paints the administration, and thus Elon Musk, and thus Silicon Valley bigwigs, in a bad light. Very many of the users of this site will flag anything which does so, under the guise of politics being not of interest to hackers, even as many other users of this site express interest in such conversations. (Even for me to honestly mention this phenomenon is technically against the rules, though.)
That is source available, not open source. The term "open-source" is widely used to describe software that is licensed using a specific set of software licenses that grant certain freedoms to users. You can read more here[0]
It's open source if you're using language like a normal human being. If you're a bit of a pedant and wish everyone to adhere to definitions imposed from on high regardless of real-world usage, it's absolutely not open source.
I think typical premium is about 20% for acquisitions.
The amount may have been negotiated prior to this month's downturn, which Hashicorp was hit pretty hard by (they had about a 10% fall based on what I'm seeing).
Yea, I think it often depends on where a company's stock has moved recently. IBM's offer is still below HashiCorp's 52-week high. That means there's probably a lot of current investors who likely wouldn't approve a deal at a 20% premium. If your stock is near its 52-week high, then a 20% premium looks a lot more reasonable.
April-August of last year, HashiCorp was regularly above a 20% premium over Monday's close. Many investors might think it would get back there without a merger - and it had been higher. IBM is offering $35/share which is close to the $36.39 52-week high. In some cases, investors are delusional and just bought in at the peak. In other cases, a company's shares have been under-valued and the company shouldn't sell itself cheaply.
I don't think one can really have a fixed percent premium for acquisitions because it really depends. Is their stock trading at a bargain price right now? Maybe people who believe in the stock own a lot of the company and don't have more capital to buy shares at the price they consider to be a bargain - but would vote against selling at that bargain price even if they can't buy more. They're confident other investors will come around. An acquiring company wants to make an offer they think will be accepted by the majority of investors, but also doesn't want to pay more than it has to. If the stock has been down and investors think it's a sinking ship, they don't have to offer much of a premium. If the stock is up a ton and investors sense a bubble, maybe they don't have to offer much of a premium. If the stock has been battered, but a lot of shareholders believe in it, then they might need to offer more of a premium.
Analyst consensus I've seen on long-term price has been floating around $32-34 per share. Take that with as much salt as you think it needs but it's at least interesting that it's within shouting distance of (but not over) the IBM offer.
This seems to be a perfect example of the 'flag' button being abused by people as a sort of "mega downvote" instead of using it correctly to mark offtopic, clickbait, flamebait, spam, or other inappropriate stories.
Thank you! I used the key words "Doodle of X. Black and white using ink." Sometimes removing the "ink" part helps. And make sure X is not too detailed.
