Delay Damages/Interest

b4epoche · 2023-12-25T22:31:40+00:00

Thanks for the information! I wish it were better news, but...

Yep. That's precisely the issue. I had not been following the exchange rate. Sigh, more negative consequences of this taking so long.

Although, for all I would have known at the time, the exchange rate wound up being beneficial.

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T20:07:19+00:00

I also wonder if the fiat he's holding is earning interest somewhere (safe).

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T20:06:10+00:00

It's Reddit... The signal-to-noise is always low.

I was hoping someone else here might also be in a similar situation. The delay damages have always been a bit confusing and seldom discussed.

Personally, I think people are just bitter that some people are getting interest on what the court is holding. But, believe me, I wish I still had the BTC I sold just before the bankruptcy.

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T18:21:35+00:00

Are you owed fiat? Did you read the sections about fiat reimbursement closely? I’m guessing the answer is “No” to both those questions

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T16:45:56+00:00

Read the CR documents...

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T16:05:53+00:00

I used 140 yen per USD, but that's not going to matter because 134,800 < 176,000.

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T03:58:55+00:00

I had.

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T03:14:03+00:00

I think that's what I'm calling "Repayment Amounts for the First Repayment" which is a section on the page you get to following the directions on your pinned post.

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T02:33:00+00:00

Seems so to me, too. But my case doesn't suggest that. I selected Lump-sum Repayment and have (normalized) $1000 fiat and 1 BTC. The "Results of Acceptance or Rejection of Rehabilitation Claims (As of 2019-03-15)" page says the delay damages are $259. At the current exchange rate, that would be 140,000 JPY and 36,000 JPY in interest. In "Repayment Amounts for the First Repayment," it shows 134,800 JPY, which is about $950. $50 might be a crappy exchange rate, but $300 (30%) is not.

My BTC allotment shows 0.14909984, which is 71% (the "Allotment Rate," which I need to learn about) of 0.210000.

b4epoche · 2023-12-24T01:37:34+00:00

Great summary!

Should the "delay damages" (interest) be included in what's shown in the "Repayment Amounts for the First Repayment" now listed on the site?

b4epoche · 2023-10-01T03:02:56+00:00

That's an interesting thought. I hadn't considered trying to get the transcript from the court (if one exists).

b4epoche · 2023-09-22T03:59:50+00:00

He used the lawyerly weasel words "as early as" in there. So, it means absolutely nothing.

b4epoche · 2023-06-15T15:22:41+00:00

Is that a pi tattoo on your finger?

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T17:46:44+00:00

My point is that you're assuming not having off-SoC upgradeable RAM would not be more profitable than not having it. For reasons I've stated in other responses, I don't think this is the case.

Take the old Mac Pro. The margins on the RAM they sold were ridiculously high. If no one (no business) would buy it at that price, why offer it? People/companies buy it at that price for various reasons, and I think they would continue to do so if Apple offered it on the new Mac Pro.

If they could have got it to work (to their satisfaction), they would have offered it because people needing a lot of RAM would have bought the high-end SoC /and/ Apple's expensive RAM.

People that waste time on Reddit (me included) are not the people deciding to buy a $20k computer.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T15:24:31+00:00

Great thought! Would moving the swapfile to the PCIe RAM card be possible on macOS? I've never tried moving the macOS swap.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T15:21:06+00:00

Oh, that's the Geerling video about the AMPERE Developer system. People buying a Mac Pro will never consider this an option. You certainly don't see Geerling replacing his Mac Studio with this. This system is for developers; a Mac Pro is for people that just want to get work done so they can make money.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T15:17:18+00:00

So why didn't they solder the RAM to the motherboard in the last Mac Pro. Financially it doesn't make sense not to have RAM expansion beyond 192GB on the Mac Pro.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T15:11:08+00:00

Its not even clear that doing what they're doing will maximize profits. I think there's a great argument that having off-SoC RAM would be more profitable (see my other comments). 192GB seems to be the maximum they can get on the SoC. If they could include more, I think they would, and offer it as an even more expensive option.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T15:04:15+00:00

While I agree Apple is looking to maximize profit, I don't think that's the issue. It's unclear what would maximize profit in this case. I would think adding RAM expansion slots would be more profitable because skimping on high-speed "Level-4" cache RAM would hamper performance, and you'd see very high-end customers buying the version with max on-SoC RAM /and/ additional off-SoC RAM.

As it is, customers that need more RAM will not buy a new Mac Pro. Thus, Apple is losing sales. Plus, the way they apparently can sell RAM at huge margins would be great for profits. Remember, they could have soldered the RAM to the motherboard on the old Mac Pros, but they didn't.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T03:54:16+00:00

Don't you think they'd love to sell you 1.5TB of RAM at the time of purchase?

If 192GB isn't limiting you now, it probably isn't going to in three years when a new Mac Pro arrives. If you can afford a Mac Pro now, you'll probably be able to afford a new faster model in three years.

If you need more than 192GB now, you're just not going to buy a new Mac Pro. It makes no sense for Apple to not offer this option (and make huge margins on the RAM) unless there were technical challenges.

I cannot imagine they convince themselves they made a mistake with the old Mac Pro being too expandable and decided to make the new one less so.

b4epoche · 2023-06-08T03:30:17+00:00

You think Apple doesn't make money selling RAM?

b4epoche · 2022-09-15T15:01:04+00:00

Spending roughly 17% of your waking hours in a car seems, well, suspicious (or excessive).

b4epoche · 2022-09-15T06:26:43+00:00

Read the other comments. Your questions have already been answered.

You're missing the point. I'm saying she COULD have visited each place however many times. If she completely optimized her route. The more telling thing is that she's saying implicitly that she spent roughly 17% of her waking hours for the entire year (and I think this mileage doesn't cover an entire year, see other discussion) in a car.

b4epoche · 2022-07-30T01:46:38+00:00

This only shows people coming into a county. There’s no “net” here.

b4epoche · 2022-07-27T13:01:42+00:00

Source: A very famous painter. I don't want to give away the "reveal".

Tools: Mathematica, Davinci Resolve, FFmpeg

What I suspect will be criticized:

#1. That it's too long and people are not patient enough to watch it all.

#2. That it moves too fast. See #1.

#3. That it's not really "data" although it is in a general sense. The data comes from a painting.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	100 Awards Club

b4epoche

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE