This is actually known as the Drowning Child problem, and its most important implication is that any billionaire is "extremely evil."
The parent comment would still be correct though, and billionaires are just filling a power vacuum, nothing wrong about that. I genuinely believe U.S. is also just filling the power vacuum & mostly has done nothing wrong, similar to other superpowers. There's nothing inherently wrong about letting the child drown unless you are the child & can protest about your own drowning, and there's nothing wrong with filling the power vacuum, because the universe has determined that someone ought to do it sooner or later. And we cannot do anything about this.
I define problem/issue/similar words in the following way: a thing that, if deemed existent by me, is also my own fault & realistically fixable by my self.
You're near-certainly right that pegging in dollars would means some rate, let's for simplicity presume a constant ratio, between dollars and what it's begged to.
I think crux is what happens if we model two different currencies, one of which is begged, and the price of te commodity in each.
If after the conversion rate you can get cheap gold, that keeps golds value low and pegged currency's value high, I would guess.
Again I think restricting impots in the commodity is necessary to maintain supply.
It's a bidirectional relationship. The value of gold actually remained stable when the U.S. dollar was pegged to it. I view that as evidence for pegging stabilizing the value of the commodity it is pegged to. However is an simplification, because share of the dollar relative to other currencies policies has changed. I also only believe the system I depicted would work, if the exports of the commodity were restricted so that no one or only the central bank could sell it abroad.
You're right. How can any state with nuke-backed right to issue ultimatums slowly get weakened like that? If Russia states limits, and convinces U.S. that they will launch if the limits are crossed, and these limits are within the threat budget of Russia, can they not make U.S. agree to things (and vice versa)?
If you can always move to smaller denominations, deflation would not be an issue:
If the price of an apple at t_0 is $2 and (using arbitrary symbol for the other currency) §2, and at t_1 $20=§2, then at t_1 citiziens in the nation using § as currency would pay §0.2 for an apple, et cetera.
The other currency would have to use scientific notation, for cash.
(if deflation wasn't the the cause of that crisis, this is not an answer).
I don't know the best rule to use for the process, since there seems to be many potential combinations of rules for it, but the idea of forced-gesselization is that if you buy a house with the bad money from foreign gray markets dealer, when you try to sell the house, you are taxed as if house and the bad money you bought it (this type of situation would be gray area, as such requiring intervention and appraisal of actual value by government body, which is not to be desired; but such practice also would not have to be commonplace) with had been in the demurraged currency, e.g. for the duration of the ownership.
Normally we can think of sales value to mean value - tax, where tax = g(ownership_duration), where g is gesselization function, which would preferably remain same over time but doesn't have to be linear or simply value or function of time as long as it is simply enough high schooler can solve for it without a computer.
The distinction between government and crypto currencies is wrong one to make.
I fail to see how gold-pegged, gasselized (demurraged at constant rate until they vanish down to UBI limit, except from government/CB wallets, with other assets also demurraged when sold/bought via cap gains style taxes), constant supply cryptocurrency would not be in fact better than the dollar and the euro and the yen, and it would be both inflation & deflation resistant.
What psychedelic/mind-altering/weird coaching prompts do you use?
I have separate system prompts for taboo-teaching, excessive-pedanticism, excessive-toxicity, excessive-praise, et cetera.
My general rules is anything & everything humans would never ever do, but that would somehow allow me to explore altered states of consciousness, ways of thinking, my mind, the world, better. Something to make me smarter from the experience of the chat.
Malgorhitms are. We could, if we didn't confuse use it with LoTR entities, have belgorhitms, which would not only be recommended by Kahneman & Tversky, but also recommend by intelligence analysts, the historical opposites of corporate analysts, minions Belegron.
Algorhitms, "changing how one thinks" is real, and ultimately good. The social changes, when they start expecting you to Anki your work contract (which would, if the Anki was monitored, be highly legally effective against you); or requiring you know Kellyed Bayesian decision theory because that's a prequsite for getting reasonably priced insurance, or simply, surviving, that is unknown. I give 37.7% confidence Elon Musk was gaming in 2025 U.S. politics using construct akin to a Bayesian decision tree.
It would be great if one didn't have to change how one thinks, whether they delve into CLRS or TikTok.
My grandparent used consider global bubbles as the norm, likely because his own parents never told him that local, company-limited bubble are actually the norm. Fortunately my own parents are more agreeable with how I manage my finances, and my whole family – including the 380-minutes old grand-grandparents – is still alive & well. We still see each other, despite the occasional confusion my use of the English plurals causes us (not to mention everyone's own ups & downs, and the weird reproductive mechanisms of our larger genus within the world).
Now that you mentioned, "as highly conscious and self aware person", I observe the wave like up and down breathing effective, which I did not pay attention to while on the site, as a cost-effect. The interesting part is I am not always sure if I am actually waving from breathing, of if this is the illusion, and it was for half minute certainly both. This is the type of thing one remembers a decade afterwards.
I don't know if this is AI, it looks like it, but could well not be.
I believe this isn't "just fun" but having told the AI to not to make it work for meme effect on HN. Obviously AI could fix easily, including but not limited to the music itself.
I don't live in Germany but hate internet banking and de-letterization and other "digitalization" because it's first step in erosion of rights. The second step is forbidding the offline version.
It would be great use of my money, were I a billionaire, to build a vacuum-insulated sodaduct & cervisiaduct as a ring going around Europe perhaps with a monorail on the bottom (for convenient repairs) & photovoltaic cells on top to power it the monotail. Technically you can have two monorails for one track, one above and one below, so the upper monorail could be used for something else as well. The ice & carbon dioxide would be delivered separately to keep the the drinks fresh, and there would be few be a different pipe for drinks from different German & French & Spanish districts inside the cervisiaduct.
I don't watch YouTube but if I would / I would if I'd cut out anything with faces or speech & use an LLM to summarize what's technically relevant from the transcript in a way that fits length of what remains.
Pipeline such content, but use weighted random videos, with low weights for types of content with clickbait headings & perhaps blacklist for words like meme or lol in transcript to cut out things with stock footage. I am not sure of exact best way to remove it, actually, other than "using the transcript for some computational technique of probabilitistic stock footage prediction" which I bet would be most effective.
For clarity, I don't consider anything mentioned even practically feasible or relevant.
I mentally tripped over by forgetting that if stock costs 500 + [0,10] (where it fluctuates) normally, you must in order to participate even without any fees pay 500 + [0,10] and not just the [0,10].
Oh yeah, I think in my head I confuse the size of the bet with the size of the ranges where it could be claimed to frequently cross the line between sell or buy (which I proposed would be what is most frequently crossed over), but in normal stock markets the market never hits the bottom. Compare this – real markets – to discrete signal between in [0.00,5.00] with smallest change being 0.25, and the market frequently going to zero or near zero, where know it often goes from [0.00, 1.75] to [2.25, 5.00]. In such case you wouldn't lose as heavily. So then markets can be roughly & informally modeled as what's the relationship between how much it somehow "often" changes vs. what's the risk cost, e.g. since normally stocks don't drop to zero constantly what's the bottom part in the traditional market graph that stays the same (it doesn't seem trivial to me what's the best way to consider what's often and what's the bottom part as the bottom part may change over time even if it most of time in real world remains constant, but I think the idea doesn't need one to know the exact alforhitm as yet to speak of values that if often crosses.
So what, then is the exact information value of these candy bars of when the stock has not changed value? What do they tell us? And moreover, are they consistently valued, since the primary tail risk seems to be (probably, I am not expert) market crash, which means one would expect each to have the unchanging candy bar to relative to future performance, so that if we have a reasonable assumption of market crash probability, then some pattern should emerge & things should make sense?
I believe it's trivial to formalize this point & honestly fruitless to not to figure it out, but I will post this comment & perhaps later on return to this. To me the primary here is that the candy bar is what matters, and that if any markets like my [0.00, 5.00] market exist, my strategy would be profitable in those.
Moreover, I think in trading strategy the idea that one wants to guess how fast they can cross the threshold to not to lose, to be able to "Martingale" as you out it is valuable & kellyable.
The parent comment would still be correct though, and billionaires are just filling a power vacuum, nothing wrong about that. I genuinely believe U.S. is also just filling the power vacuum & mostly has done nothing wrong, similar to other superpowers. There's nothing inherently wrong about letting the child drown unless you are the child & can protest about your own drowning, and there's nothing wrong with filling the power vacuum, because the universe has determined that someone ought to do it sooner or later. And we cannot do anything about this.
I define problem/issue/similar words in the following way: a thing that, if deemed existent by me, is also my own fault & realistically fixable by my self.