There is a high likelihood this ruling gets overturned. The title and the article use the term “book ban” but gloss over what’s actually happening which is legally significant:

> HB 1069 required that school librarians remove materials from their collections that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the value of the book

Florida cannot ban private libraries from stocking books with sexual content. But librarians are government employees buying books and maintaining libraries with government money. The state can direct its employees what kinds of books to make available for the same reason any private entity can do so.

This might be different if libraries were neutral venues for authors to come present about their books. In that case you might have a case about viewpoint discrimination. But the first amendment can’t force the government to buy particular books and make them available to the public.

People reading the book and being into it and telling other people.

It’s also a hard book to read so it may be smart kids trying to signal being smart.

Practically the day after I learned about tail recursion in CS class, I learned that almost all recursive calls can be translated to iteration, that in many cases the iterative version is easier to scan, is as fast if not faster, and that they can usually handle much much larger inputs than recursion due to avoiding stack overflow.

Tail recursion is meant to fix the latter. But what we mean to happen and what actually happens ain't ever exactly similar.

Tail recursion IME is a bigger foot gun than relying on someone to add a new conditional branch at the end of a block in an iterative algorithm without fucking it up in the process. And iteration responds generally better to Extract Function. And while I can think of counter cases easily enough, in the large iteration is less work and less vigilance. And you cannot scale a project up without the vigilance requirement amortizing basically to 0 per line of code.

Look, I'm not agreeing with this admin's policy direction, and I certainly don't want the world they envision that this policy will drive us toward—there's plenty of reasonable skepticism that it won't even have the desired knock on effects they're hoping for, but I do think the folks at the helm know broadly what the levers they're pulling do. I worry the level of stupidity that their critics project on them is both inaccurate and is so severe as to essentially excuse their actions and absolve them of any responsibility for them.

The orange figurehead, probably not, but the people actually pulling the strings and writing all those executive orders absolutely do. The folks in power might be misguided but they are acting purposely creating more protectionist policies. To what end I think is anyone's guess. I don't think it's clear how an isolationist US benefits us when right now we have every country in the world giving us real tangible wealth in exchange for paper.

1.2B went to investors, the remaining 1.2B was actually an incentive/payout for the founders/employees that google took. The company basically has whatever money it had in the bank, plus a bit more from Google - but no investor liabilities.

> My question is what happened to the $2.4B

We don't know what deal they made with the VCs, but they could have multiple liquidation preference agreements.

> A liquidation preference multiple (e.g., 1x, 2x) determines how much investors receive before any distribution to common shareholders. A 2x preference means investors are entitled to twice their initial investment amount before others receive payouts.