How is fraud in a commercial index relevant to our understanding of money and central banking? Did the Enron scandal undermine our understanding of steam turbines?
How is the interbank interest rate being defined on the fly in-mente relevant to our understanding of some large central banks determining their total credit supply by punching some numbers into a computer ex nihilo?
> the interbank interest rate being defined on the fly
All prices are determined on the fly, certainly day-to-day ones. Libor wasn’t the interbank rate, it was one commercial offering, albeit a powerful one. The Fed Funds rate always was and now SOFR are transactionally derived, which is fundamentally different from Libor, which was never anything more than a survey.
> a finite amount of energy in this universe and yet here we are at "Practically all prices are determined on the fly"
This is a silly comparison. Stars don’t model their fusion output. Particles interact on the fly. There is also no model relating entropy to overnight collateralised borrowing rates.
> calculating physically intrinsic value for a sufficient number of commodities
The sum total positive energy contained in the universe can be calculated and predicted.
>Interbank funds aren’t a finite commodity.
This statement is obviously false and can run into brick walls in practice.
The comparison isn't silly in the slightest. Currencies must be coupled to a finite resource to function; Lest agent A buy all of agent B's gold using practically nothing but chutzpah.
That you think the comparison is "silly" shows limited/magical thinking on the subject.
No, it isn’t, though misunderstanding it isn’t even fundamental to the flaw in your thinking. A couple of banks can create and destroy an infinite amount of money among them with no real effect. JPMorgan credits UBS a trillion trillion trillion dollars at the latter’s JPMorgan account at the same time UBS credits JPMorgan at its UBS account, and then they both undo it a moment later. No real effect. Hell, JPMorgan could create the money with no counterbalance so they could look at it how pretty it is for an indefinite amount of time. Same deal. Regulators won’t be happy, but that’s because of the potential effects of UBS trying to buy the Fed’s balance sheet.
It’s when the interbank market interacts with broader markets that anything real happens.
> What need do banks have for that capability where the capability shouldn't clearly be criminalised?
Banks don't legally have that capability.
The point wasn't that banks do this. It's that it would have the same-real world effect (again, outside regulatory action and law enforcement) as me writing you a trillion-dollar IOU.
You screwed up the answer here in this classic Uber-commodity based economy (which no actual economist has ever proposed outside of thought experiments).
The traditional answer when people go down this path is “what ever the producer and consumer agree the price is based on a currency denominated in joules that can be extracted from an atom”.
By doing so you’ve eliminated all forms of value adding capabilities from your economic system. The paper clip is no more valuable than its unprocessed atomic components, which is clearly not how real value is derived (or your currency is completely divorced from value).
> it's accounting related rather than technology related
Precisely. The accounting scandal has as much to do with the underlying technology as the Libor scandal does with our understanding of the mechanics of banking. Nobody informed walked away from the Libor scandal rethinking the fundamentals of banking in the same way chickens didn’t get bioengineered in response to chicken Libor.
Petty criminals are recruited in places like 4chan and KiwiFarms and given computer access to these microwave weapons and trained on how to use them on civilians - children included.
It isn't any specific government or company that is responsible - albeit many are used as front to collect money and influence.
Hacking their devices would uncover identities, as would following the money trail.
At 1:00, they claim microwaves will trigger a photoelectric cell used as an anti-tamper mechanism in a mine if someone is "beaming" him with microwaves. That doesn't make any sense. Photoelectric cells are there to detect... photons. Light. And they're indeed used as anti-tamper mechanisms.
Microwaves are photons. I don't know if photoelectric cells will respond to that wavelength, but they are the same particle as visible electromagnetic radiation.
That's how most opensource game revivals work, one is not legally allowed to distribute original in-game assets. If you come up with free textures and sounds, you'll get the 100% free alternative
The assets are still under copyright. On paper you could "re-implement" assets as well, ie. remake all the models, textures, music, voices and rewrite all the quests.
Because software copyright was and is a bad idea, and courts (especially the 9th Circuit) have generally carved out exceptions for compatibility-related copying in the software domain that absolutely would not apply to other copyrightable work that ships with the software. You absolutely can legally reimplement a computer program such as a game engine, but doing so to the story, assets, level design, or what have you would just be ordinary copyright infringement. As a result most game reimplementations either do not ship with any art, or ship with an entirely separate custom-made campaign to demonstrate the capabilities of the reimplemented game engine.
The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is an appeals court that covers basically the entire west coast of the United States within it's jurisdiction. As a result of that, it covers a lot of copyright cases and has a lot of it's own copyright jurisprudence that doesn't automatically apply in other circuits. (Notably, Oracle v. Google would have taken half the time it should have been had it not included patent claims, which moved what should have been a 9th Circuit case into Federal Circuit jurisdiction.)
Now I want to start an MLM that buys Android devices for $50, sells them to recruits for $100, and convinces them the $500/device HTTP revolution is just around the corner.
Agreed regarding the "or" - rejecting consistency here just
because other languages do it differently is weird.
> it's not clear what it makes more succinct than the equivalent `elif` statements
But pattern matching is shorter than if-else in many cases and
can actually differentiate between structures which makes it
very flexible. It's like switch-case should have been from the
start imho.
As an example, in Rust I often do comparisons between certain
values by simply matching a tuple of them:
match (foo, bar) {
(x, x) => true, // foo == bar
(Foo::VariantA(42), _) => unreachable!(), // has to be a bug
(Foo::VariantA(a), _) => a < 0,
_ => false,
}
This is of course a rather simple example, but I hope it still
conveys what I like so much about this kind of feature. It
doesn't do more than an if-else chain, but under the right
circumstances it really shines. Just like list comprehensions
don't add any new functionality, but the filtering and mapping
features are often simply more expressive for what you want to
do.
Although I'm not sure what to think of Python's preference to
put the condition and code in different lines; maybe that's
optional, which could make it more succinct when the situation
permits it.
