A "good marriage" isn't guaranteed to be a desirable one past the wedding day. I am in no way suggesting GP's marriage is a ticking time bomb, but I've read enough stories on Reddit and elsewhere to know there's no such thing as a guaranteed marriage even if you do everything right. My expectation is that GP's or his spouse might possess insight.
People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates's, Carmack's, and most recently Tom Brady's) can have the scales tipped into the direction of "leave for reason X and take what you can from him (and sometimes her) on the way out", whether out of vindictiveness or perceived entitlement, even if the money wasn't the primary cause or objective.
I think that's a common misunderstanding about who owns what in a marriage. I'll quote Matt Levine on this:
One thing that I find a little weird about the Bezos divorce is that there are a lot of claims that it will make MacKenzie Bezos “the world’s richest woman.” I suppose there is a technical sense in which that is right, but it assumes not only that she will have a right to half of Jeff Bezos’s assets in divorce, but also that she has no such right in marriage. That strikes me as a strange way to think about marriage, and about the “community property” laws that might give her half the assets in divorce. (Surely those laws imply that she is in a sense a joint owner now?) I would have thought the more straightforward analysis is that she is the world’s richest woman now, because she is a member of a married couple that has more money than any other single person or married couple on the planet, but I guess that is not how the scorekeeping works.
This concept of marital property is speculative, if not fictional, unless both Jeff and Mackenzie made explicit agreements to co-own the shares during their marriage. Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. If he were deposed by the SEC over alleged claims of market manipulation with Amazon stock, Mackenzie would not be the one held liable. While she may have been able to influence his purchases/selloffs as one half of the world's now-formerly richest couple, she never had ownership of the stock as a legally-recognized property right in itself (and the liabilities the may come with such ownership). She now has such a right (although I would argue that she shouldn't) as a divorcée.
> I would argue this concept of marital property is a fiction
Property is a social construct; marital property no more or less than any other, and likewise no more or less a fiction.
> . Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it.
Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.
Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.
> Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.
So pre-divorce MacKenzie could have unilaterally decided to dump Jeff's Amazon shares on the market without his permission?
She could have burnt down Bezos's Medina home to bits and he couldn't sue for damages, even if he payed for the construction, property taxes, other bills, and was sole owner of the deed?
She could have access to any separate bank accounts he owned, and blown it all?
> Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.
A partnership in and of itself doesn't create any obligations other than the acknowledgement of said partnership. There isn't a presumption of combined ownership. A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to. If a contract is voided, one is no longer required to perform any duties or continue providing resources.
In a marriage, the terms are set by the state and there is a presumption of combined ownership. Even if a prenup to the effect of "I keep what I earned, you keep what you earned" exists, a judge can ignore it.
> A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to.
So is a marriage. In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.
> If a contract is voided
That’s not relevant, here. Voiding a contract is cancellation, due to a legal defect that makes it categorically invalid (if completely prohibited) or voidable at the discretion of a party (such as when one party was a child when making it); the marital case of voiding a contract is annulment, not divorce.
Divorce is termination of a contract, not voiding.
> In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.
I'm aware of that and seeing as the Bezos's marriage did not have a pre-nup, Jeff was relatively fortunate. But my concern is with how marriages are treated as legal institutions apart from how commercial contracts are upheld.
In a partnership, two private parties can create a contract by themselves. The state is not involved in the creation of a contract. The state will only involve itself with the contract's enforcement or the resolution of any suits arising from its dissolution. The state works within the body of laws it's upheld, but almost all rights stated in the contract supersede the default assumptions held by the state.
When it comes to marriage, the state (via the court) is deemed its creator, enforcer, and dissolver. A divorce can only be granted under the acceptance of the state's terms. A judge can decide to ignore precedent or the upholding of a pre-nup.
Many who are / have been in bad marriages complain loudly about it. The many in good marriages rarely talk about it ("bragging").
Thus, take such stories online with a grain of salt. Especially since many are blind to their own faults, and therefore can't include them in their stories.
There are many good marriages in which at least one spouse brags about a happy (however that's defined) life of 20+ years and many bad marriages that aren't evident as such until the inevitable "he/she left me and I don't know why" post on Reddit.
I agree that it is important to take a person's examination of his/her self or his/her (ex-)spouse with a grain of salt. And while people are blind to their own faults, you're making the mistake of thinking that divorces are based on falsifiable and rational assessments. Some are. Some aren't. But one isn't likely know the true reason a long time after the fact, if at all.
In Haifa (Israel) there was a staircase race a few years ago, from sea level to the top of the city going up more than 1000 stairs. One version of this was doing it over and over so that the total is the height of the Everest. I'm pretty sure there were several runners who finished that successfully.
All the other answers in the thread focus on maximizing head-to-head score. I'll try to answer the question for the goal of greedily maximizing your own score.
Using the same definitions from the article, we now have (for a 2 person game):
Q_i = -P_i + (1 - sum_{j=1..i}(P_j))
Where the first term is for the case of choosing the same number as your opponent, and the second when it's larger than your opponent.
Now solve the same set of equations, but with our new Q_i. Solving Q_1 = Q_2 analytically is easy, then Q_2 = Q_3 and so on... You get P = (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ...)
So that's the result for this specific 2-player game. You could also ask about the 2-player game with tie=t for any negative t (the above is for t=-1). Now we get
Q_i = t*P_i + (1 - sum(P_j))
Again, solving Q_i=Q_{i+1} is easy and gives
P_{i+1} = (t / (t-1)) * P_i
For example, if t=-2 then (using the fact that all P_i's sum to 1): P = (1/3, 2/9, 3/27, ...)
I did not try to tackle the 3-player game with tie=t.
The path with that label is blocked unless the condition is fulfilled. I don't think it relies on any prior knowledge (at least nothing specific I can think of)
On the contrary, it should be on by default for every build configuration! If you move to a newer compiler version and the compilation breaks, then you just saved yourself valuable debugging time. The alternative is that the new compiler has a new optimization that causes your code to break in runtime. You can always disable specific warnings if you think they're not relevant for your code.
There are some exit clauses (like Musk not getting financing from his banks) but they don't apply here. Specifically, there's no exit clause for the bot percentage.
> If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.
Are you just trying to change the meaning of the word promise? Most people would agree that if you break a promise you pay a price - it might be a social one in case of a promise between friends. Or it might be a financial price in case of a written & signed promise, a.k.a a contract.
No, you just misunderstand the breakup clause in this contract. It's not an exit for any reason and pay a fee clause.
Musk is actually obligated to buy the company at this point. It is unlikely the courts will fully attempt to force such a large purchase. But the penalty decided could be much higher than $1B.
I'm glad we finally all agree there is a breakup clause. If you want to argue that Musk will lose in court or that he promised Twitter share holders be will buy the company then I will still be here for that.
http://tom7.org/zelda/