So they've launched this site without providing a singular example?

Worked for Musk.

A blog post that says a lot of words without really saying anything at all.

The whole post boils down to "The founders of Reform have multiple companies."

Legal requirement in the UK. No way around it.

Only if you store non-essential cookies, as explained by the team themselves:

> You can choose not to have a cookie banner if the service only sets essential or ‘strictly necessary’ cookies, as these do not need user consent.

> However, you must tell users that you set essential cookies. You can do this with a cookies page — link to this page in the footer.

https://design-system.service.gov.uk/components/cookie-banne...

I would have hoped the government would be able to design a system that works only on "technical necessity" cookies and not anything more elaborate with regards to PII.

The pop-up allows you to switch off certain functionality (statistics cookies). If that functionality wasn't there in the first place, the pop-up would not be needed.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Even if you don't actually track users?

> We use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so we can improve it based on user needs. Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about how you got to the site, the blog pages you visit, how long you spend on each page and what you click on while you're visiting the site.

Why would they not track users? They need to know how many users there are accessing from abroad (considering this is the UK which has many legitimate "abroads" like crown dependencies outside of the classic British citizens living outside of Britain), using what browsers and OSes, display sizes to know what they need to support. It would also be useful to know how much time users spend on the various pages, to know if some forms are super complex to fill out or what not.

Sure, but why use google analytics? There are better trackers for this kind of thing that don't need cookies and can be self-hosted.

Could you recommend some alternatives to Google Analytics? I am developing a plugin for Photoshop using UXP, and I have been unable to integrate it with GA.

Plausible seems like a fine choice for simple cases. It is oriented at websites, but you can send events directly to the API: https://plausible.io/docs/events-api

It is self-hostable, too. https://github.com/plausible/hosting

We use Matomo and have been fairly happy with it.

You've clearly not experienced the reality of enterprise then. You're opinions are based on a limited understanding and knowledge of real life situations when it comes to this sort of stuff.

I’ve only worked in big enterprise and big government for over two decades.

I know exactly how this works.

When someone has power, they will use it. In small, petty ways, or big “do me favours for access” ways.

Then you should know this is literally what every capitalist does!

Seems correct to me. This is a good assessment of the personalities involved.

What. That's exactly how court works?

How else do you think people and companies get away with doing a lot of bad things.

"And yeah, 80 million pounds of profit last year. I'd buy that for a dollar"

In business, last years profits are often irrelevant. This is a good example. It's a constant treadmill of trying to stay profitable - which isn't as easy as it sounds.

More so when businesses of this size are usually built on owing large sums of money.

They didn't acquire client assets for £1. That's not quite how it works.

You can't have a profitable bank that's insolvent. That doesn't make sense.

The company has gone insolvent because it's no longer profitable.

banks are not 'normal' companies.

Their Liabilities and assets outmatch their 'profit' by 100x.

They could be making a handy profit yesterday and be bancrupt today because the market has moved. Normal companies can't go bancrupt in one day

I'm not sure you understand what's happening here or the basics of business and liquidation.

"Normal companies can't go bankrupt in one day" - They didn't go bankrupt. They went into liquidation. Massively different thing. You can have a company with billions of quid saved up in the bank that goes into liquidation.

Liquidation is quite common and happens daily in the UK to 'normal' companies. Companies that were profitable last week and no longer can operate as they're not profitable enough to pay their debts/what they owe.

I think your issue here is you don't understand what liquidation is/means and basic principles of business profits. The most important part is that while a company may be profitable at the 'end of year' -- They have to first get to the end of the year.

To me it sounds like you don't understand them either?

What you seem to be talking about about is cashflow insolvency. You can have a wildly profitable contract that pays in 120 days, but have no cash on hand to pay debtors. The work you are doing is profitable, you just can't afford to pay your debtors right now.

Profit != cashflow, that's why it's called cashflow insolvency instead of profit insolvency. You seem to be mixing up profit and cashflow.

But you're also talking about the wrong thing. These banks are not in cashflow insolvency. As far as I can see, these banks are going through what is called balance sheet insolvency. Their assets are worth less than their liabilities.

However, the assets are weird as the $100 bond they have is presently worth $78 even though in 10 years time it will be worth $100 again.This is because the interest the bonds pay is so low, no-one wants to buy it right now.

So their balance sheet doesn't add up, and as people started taking money out, they couldn't cover their liabilities. It LOOKED like their balance sheet was fine as they were valuing them at $100, but then they were forced to sell them and suddenly they have a big hole in their balance sheet.

So they're insolvent not because they've got a cashflow problem, but because their balance sheet doesn't balance. And the regulators stepped in to stop some creditors getting all their money out before that bank essentially went bust, leaving other creditors with nothing.

And now the regulators seem to be saying "we're going to guarantee that $100 bond is worth $100 even if you can only sell it for $78". By loaning people money up to $100 against it if they have one.

And they are claiming it won't cost the tax payer anything. But they're making 0% loans to banks when high inflation is happening, so the money they get back is going to be worth less than if they spent it on roads or healthcare, or whatever.

Maybe I'm wrong, and happy to be corrected, but it does seem what you're saying is wrong.

> And they are claiming it won't cost the tax payer anything. But they're making 0% loans to banks when high inflation is happening

I can think of a few methods to turn a profit with a zero-interest loan. There is definately opportunity cost.

The money that they lose is going to be assessed on all FDIC banks. It doesn't come out of general government funds. So it'll probably be paid for by increasing bank fees on customers.

According to the news reports the Fed are guaranteeing the loans, not the FDIC. I think you're talking about the stuff that they were originally saying over the weekend.

I think the press release is more accurate than the news reports, which are mostly quoting the press release badly.

Off topic, but did the slang quid come from liquid as in assets?

Never thought about that. According to Mr Google; believed to come from the Latin phrase “quid pro quo,” which translates into "something for something," or an equal exchange for goods or services.

The token £1 is just a payment requirement for ownership. The bidding process for insolvent companies is essentially who will take on the most "problems" for the best outcomes for the business.

So one company may bid saying they want to acquire X parts of the company but can not take on the advertising arm or the quality assurance part of the company; which means jobs losses etc. Another company may say we'll acquire all of the company but not the freehold properties the business owns.

The liquidation team then have to decide which bid offers the best likely outcome for the creditors/business. The £1 isn't technically what they're paying for the company, as they're taking on debt, leaseholds, pension funds etc. Their bid is technically tens or hundreds of millions depending on the situation.