mrcode007

It’s mostly because most Americans have very little clue of what the end state and the process to get there looks like. A lot of commonalities like borderline legal or gray area business practices are often extolled as virtues here or “clever business hacks”. It takes only a few to apply them in the direction that a lot of folks are simply unfamiliar with without having lived in the Soviet bloc.

Thanks for pointing it out :) Pretty interesting. I guess the trip is now a bit shorter!

First you have to fly the gold to Switzerland to a refiner and melt the London 400oz bars into COMEX 100oz bars.

New bars get new stamps, serial numbers, etc. It’s a spot where illegal gold can (doesn’t have to) be introduced.

Once you melted London 400oz bars into COMEX 100oz bars, then you fly them to New York.

This process in itself can inflate the COMEX price by the cost of delivery which is folded back into the forward price. When dealing with futures contracts it is important to know that the price is almost always localized based on the cost of delivery. There isn’t one unique global price of gold.

I second this advice. Chord is a very good place to start

The author of the report rumored to have been fired already

https://www.yahoo.com/news/treasury-warned-insider-threat-ri...

It’s not his reading. It’s the only reading.

This is just a well known Baumol’s cost disease…

Even the chart is the same?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

Sometimes people fall out the window while installing a bathtub.

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/25/521474650/when-a-russian-lawy...

It’s not a crusade :) but you do start sounding like a sugar industry shill. You can’t possibly justify, in good faith, giving humans cancer as a precondition for a study that the main thing to check is if sugar accelerates it?

If you want human studies here’s one:

The negative and detrimental effects of high fructose on the liver, with special reference to metabolic disorders:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6549781/

As I said earlier, learn to google yourself.

Is this good enough for you mister smarty pants?

Published: 04 December 2024

Dietary fructose enhances tumour growth indirectly via interorgan lipid transfer

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08258-3

Edit: for what it’s worth if you’re curious you can google most of these things yourself unless you don’t know how to but it is neither my responsibility nor my job to find these things for you or convince you. It is your job to convince yourself. If you pay me enough, I can work trying to convince you. In general I was trying to raise awareness of a fact as a form of „public service”. You are welcome to believe what you want and don’t have to agree with anything I say. But you’re are not welcome to be lazy and expect me to find things online for you.

+1

To start: https://www.aatbio.com/resources/toxicity-lethality-median-d...

To finish: there are already numerous studies documenting that fructose is not that good for you; it is, after all part of high fructose corn syrup…

Indirectly saying lower sugar intake had higher risks and so on but we know you can live just fine without any added sugar consumed without any risks. Some comments above asked if that is the correct reading and the science provided us the answers to this question a long time ago and the answer is no; eating no added sugar is healthy and you will be fine.

You don’t have to take my word for it; you can take one of UCSF professor Lustig.

https://robertlustig.com/metabolical/

Edit: yes of course, glucose is the energy of life but you don’t need to consume it. I think all(?) carbohydrates break down into glucose; ergo you can get it from broccoli. Simple test is blood glucose finger prick test after eating.

But I did mean that there are people that argue that you need added sugar for proper nutrition. These people exist.

You’re reading it wrong. Our body requires no added sugar consumption to function properly. Period.

I know, it may come as a shocker to many (most?) people.

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

Who is David Mayer?

cough cough

Gloves anyone ?

What does the title have to do with the actual link?

I agree that it is likely an indirect Bitcoin bet. It can be attracting investors prohibited from holding Bitcoin directly by regulations (pension funds, VCs, etc).

I also agree with your assessment of tricking people with an imagined advantage based on knowing the gamble mechanics. It’s a human cognitive fallacy. Knowing != good at.

For this convertible bond to be in the money requires the price of the stock to hit $800+ by 2029. You can also book trading profits in the meantime (path dependence is useful here) but I suppose liquidity may be a problem down the line. In general I’m skeptical. I have set a reminder to come back here in 2029

The path makes you feel good but they convert at discrete event times if they occur. I would suspect they’re highly illiquid and cashing in may be difficult. I’m speculating though. We will find out when they mature.

Edit: The general rule is that products like this are sold, not bought ;-)

You’re giving microstrategy a 0% interest loan they can invest at 4.5% and then buy you out before you make any money on the conversion which is also electable at their discretion to be in cash or stock.

Most likely this is a move to pump bitcoin and by inducing one sided market impact allow offloading via pledged asset type of loans without having to sell Bitcoin (which would cause down side market impact and impair the price)

Introduction to Data Compression Khalid Sayood

Start here ^

The structured part is because these options are most likely replicated with existing option products. A binary call can similarly be replicated with other options and packaged

IIRC There is only one prediction market with a single regulatory exemption granted for the University of Iowa and the bets are limited to $500.

The rest of what we see are (binary) event contracts (options)

Based on my understanding, which may be incorrect, they seem to be basically a rebranding of binary options which were illegal in the US for the longest time. With a clever renaming trick things now work :)

There is no b-3 bomber :-)

What you’re saying is equivalent to throwing out all of mathematics due to the incompleteness theorem and start praying to fried egg jellyfish on full moon

That is not true at all. You do not need to generate a spec. All you need to do is prove a property. This can be done in many ways.

For example, many things can be proven about the following program without having to solve any general problem at all:

echo “hello world”

Similarly for quick sort, merge sort, and all sort of things. The degree of formality doesn’t have to go to formal methods which are only a very small part of the whole field

The theory you’re alluding to says it is impossible to create a general algorithm that decides any non-trivial property of any computer program.

There is nothing in the theory that prevents you creating a program that verifies a particular specific program.

There is an entire field dedicated to doing just that.