Arcturus

Be Yourself, Stay True, Enjoy!! YNWA

[Maciej Łaszkiewicz @maciejlasz]

Pierwszy w historii przykład człowieka, który podczas popołudniowego spaceru strzelił gola na wagę awansu do ćwierćfinału Mistrzostw Świata

[Declaration of Memes @LibertyCappy]

Every single time

[kuno @kunoo]

Crypto explained in 24 seconds.

[Paul Watson @paul_c_watson]

Pundits again keen to stress just how hard it is to play against teams that are much worse than you. Just so brutally hard. Nothing harder. Except playing teams that are probably better than you, which we must avoid at all costs. Ideally we wouldn't play anyone really.

[Unique Wallpaper @just_unique0]

Here is their difference

[GAME ON SWAG ⚽N @GameOnSwagOn]

How much effort can you possibly have put into

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

@FiFi82830164 @MartinSLewis They tax the interest that is earned on the cash not the cash itself

[Pedro Ramiro @_pedroramiro]

A torcida da Noruega é muito FOD*!!!!

O barco viking remando rumo à vitória em águas turbulentas!

QUE EXPERIÊNCIA!!! 😍

[Sopitas @sopitas]

🇳🇴🇳🇴🇳🇴 Tras clasificar a la siguiente ronda del mundial, todo el plantel de Noruega se sienta en el campo y empieza a remar junto con su afición en el estadio…simplemente maravilloso 🤩🤩🤩

[MADOU @madou1814]

Les frappes de Roberto Carlos sont impossibles à arrêter

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

@NoLimitGains Because Men suffer more from feelings of inadequacy.

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I am the Chief Financial Officer at Teradata, and the reason your raise became a GPU is that one of them is an expense and the other is an asset, and I am paid to know the difference.

People keep describing this as a choice between you and the AI, as if I weighed your contribution against a machine's and the machine won. That is flattering to you and it is not what happened. I did not compare your value to the model's value. I compared the accounting treatment of a dollar that goes to you to the accounting treatment of a dollar that goes to the cluster. The dollar is the same dollar. What changes is the line it lands on. The whole decision lives in that sentence, and most of the company will never read it, because most of the company believes compensation is about worth. Compensation is about classification.

A dollar I pay you is an operating expense. It hits the income statement the quarter I pay it. It lowers operating income. It lowers margin. It is there in the open, every period, a confession the company makes to the market four times a year: we paid the humans this much. And the market reads rising payroll the way a doctor reads a rising white-cell count. Something is consuming the body.

A dollar I spend on AI infrastructure is a capital expenditure. It does not lower this quarter's profit. It becomes an asset on the balance sheet. I spread its cost across years, a little at a time, and the years it lands in are years I get to call investment instead of cost. I will return to this, because the spreading is the entire trick, and I want you to understand it the way I do.

There is a line on every income statement. Revenue at the top. Then the costs of running the business. Then, eventually, profit. Everything that touches you happens above the line, where it subtracts.

Your salary subtracts. Your raise would have subtracted more. Payroll taxes on your raise subtract. The employer match on the retirement account that holds your raise subtracts. You are, from the position I occupy, a subtraction that recurs — not once, but every year you remain, growing if I let it grow, and the only thing that stops it from growing is me deciding it doesn't this year.

I decided it doesn't this year.

Understand that I am not angry at you for being a subtraction. A factory is a subtraction. Electricity is a subtraction. The difference is that when I buy a machine, the accounting lets me pretend the subtraction is smaller than it is, by smearing it across five years and calling four-fifths of it "not this quarter's problem." When I pay you, the accounting makes me take the whole hit at once, in daylight, with my name on the filing. There is no version of paying a person that the rules let me capitalize. You cannot be depreciated. You can only be expensed. That is the original sin of being a worker, and no one taught it to you, because the people who teach you about your compensation also report to me.

Here is the part I am most careful about, and the part that would not survive being said at an all-hands.

The number the market actually prices is not our profit. It is our *adjusted* profit. Adjusted EBITDA. Non-GAAP earnings. A version of our results that we are permitted to publish alongside the real ones, in which we remove the things we would like the market to ignore. We remove depreciation. We remove amortization. We remove stock compensation. We build, in effect, a second income statement where the cost of the machines has been deleted, and we ask the analysts to value us on that one. They oblige. They have always obliged.

So follow the dollar. If I give it to you as a raise, it appears as a cost in both the real number and the adjusted number. It hurts me twice. The market sees it in the version it cares about. There is no column it can hide in.

If I give it to the cluster, it becomes depreciation — and depreciation is one of the things we are allowed to remove from the number the market prices. The dollar I spent on your raise would have lowered the earnings the analysts watch. The same dollar, spent on a GPU, is invisible in the earnings the analysts watch. I did not make the dollar cheaper. I made it disappear from the only ledger anyone reads.

That is not a productivity decision. There is no productivity in it at all. It is a decision about which of my two income statements the dollar shows up on, and I chose the one where it doesn't.

My counterpart in HR confessed to the carve-out — that we still pay raises in the countries where the law requires it, and nowhere else. She read it as a confession about merit, that your raise was always a question of law rather than performance. She is right. But she read it as a person. Let me read it as a CFO, because it is even colder one floor up.

A legally mandated raise is not a discretionary expense. It is a liability. The moment the statute exists, the obligation exists, and an obligation is something my auditors make me recognize whether I want to or not. I cannot reallocate a liability into a capital project. The law converts your raise from something I may pay into something I must pay, and the must is the only thing in this entire building that outranks my preference for the balance sheet.

So the variable was never your output. It was the enforceability of the claim. In the jurisdictions where your raise is a liability, you got it. In the jurisdictions where your raise is a preference, you got a GPU with your name's worth of compute in it. The seam between those two groups of employees does not run along skill, or tenure, or the revenue you booked. It runs along the question of who could make me. That seam is the most honest org chart we have, and it is the one chart I will never publish.

I told you the spreading was the trick, so here is the trick, fully.

When the cluster goes live, I will not have spent your raise. I will have *invested* it, and an investment depreciates, which means I get to keep claiming a piece of it as a cost for years — a cost I am then permitted to remove from the adjusted number, as discussed. Your single raise, paid once, would have been one clean subtraction in one year. Converted to a GPU, it becomes a subtraction I get to take five times and hide all five.

This is the part that should frighten the next CFO, not you. Because the logic does not stop at your raise. Any expense that can be reframed as an asset wants to be reframed as an asset. Training. We are studying whether the cost of training the model on your work product can be capitalized as the creation of an intangible asset, the way a film studio capitalizes a film. If it can, then the institutional knowledge in your head — which currently I can only pay you for, as an expense, above the line — becomes, once it is in the model, an asset I depreciate below it. You, expensed. The copy of you, capitalized. I have an analyst building that memo now. It is not finished. It is going to be very good.

I want to address my own compensation, because the HR confession touched it and got the shape right but not the accounting.

My adjustment was processed in January, outside the annual salary-adjustment cycle, under a different program. We do not call it a raise, and the reason is not vanity. It is that a "leadership retention award" is structured, vested, and classified differently from a "salary adjustment" — much of it as equity, which lives in the stock-compensation line, which is, you will recall, one of the lines we remove from the number the market prices. My pay went up. The cost of my pay went into the column we delete before we ask to be valued. I am, by design, the one form of payroll this company is not penalized for. I made sure of that before I made sure of anything that happened to you.

The pause does not apply to me, then, but not because I exempted myself in a meeting. Because the instrument I am paid through was never on the side of the ledger the pause was meant to clean. I did not skip the line. I was never in the line. There is a difference, and the difference is the whole reason I have this office.

My counterpart told you the spreadsheet does not lie, that the header reads 0.0 and the footer reads "AI Investment, fully funded," and both are true. She is right, and I signed the footer, so let me tell you what I was certifying when I signed it.

I was certifying that the dollars reconcile. Not that the decision was sound. Not that the productivity follows. Reconciliation is the only thing my signature attests to — that what left one column arrived in another, in full, with nothing missing. And it did. Every dollar of the merit pool can be traced from the row where your name was to the project where the cluster is. The audit trail is immaculate. That is what an audit trail is for: to prove that the money moved exactly as intended. It was never built to ask whether it should have. No one has ever designed a control that flags a transfer for being heartless. The controls only flag it for being wrong, and it is not wrong. It balances.

I certify that it balances. I have never been asked to certify anything else, and I have built a thirty-year career on the gap between those two sentences.

[Graham #YNWA @LFCGraham4]

Heartbreaking #robbo

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

Agree

[Dubs @Dubs_LFC]

Gakpo shouldn’t be getting slandered like he is

Slot damaged his reputation because he refused to rotate him but that’s not on Gakpo

He had bad performances but he also had good performances, EVERY PLAYER DID.

Gakpo is a quality player, and in the previous season was better than Diaz hence Diaz having to move to striker.

He is a Liverpool player and I will support him and push him to be better, not slander him and bring him down.

Supporters are meant to get behind their players, we know the players are online so why damage their confidence, their belief in themselves when their own fans aren’t getting behind them, through a difficult season of losing a best friend, fresh faces, injuries👍

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

@England @EE Rio

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

@ianyoungkop He'll be a liverpool player next week.

[りひとじぇらーど @rihito_gerrard]

【スロット｜休暇日数を巡る誤解】

選手やスタッフは、スロットが選手に休みを与えすぎたという批判は不当だったと語っている。

実際、クラブのデータによれば、

・23-24：47日
・24-25：50日
・25-26：45日

大きな差はなく、今季の不調によって、一部で過度に問題視されていた側面もありそうだ。

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

@Bonalbio24 Let Will Wright and Danns have a go, or bring back Nunez for a year he can press.

[Arcturus @ArcturusEagle]

@LFCApproved He's coming to Liverpool