The gov't can't issue 'too much' debt, unless it just burns the money it raises. Because it usually issues just enough to satisfy the domestic private sector's and foreign sector's propensity to net save.
When economy deteriorates, the private sector's propensity to save increases, as does the budget deficit. Budget deficit actually adds to private sector's net financial assets.
War is an example of destruction of wealth. They are literally burning those dollars. Now don't get me wrong here, of course those dollars are soldiers wages etc., but most of those thousands of soldiers could be doing something of actual VALUE, like running a business that produces more wealth. Nevermind the bombs, tanks, ships, etc. that are depleting the worlds net wealth by destroying and polluting. How does budget deficit add to private net financial assets? Are you just talking strictly on paper or what? They're borrowing money from the FED who just creates it from nothing. That's currency debasement, that's inflation, which is just another tax on private sectors savings! They're stealing purchasing power from anyone who saves, which is definitely not adding to net financial assets! War is something that actually generally will actually stimulate the economy which will generally increase wealth. The businesses that build bullets, and bombs and other "tools" of war will need to hire more workers, as will their suppliers. And on top of that... when the cities need rebuilding it's the "boom years". |
|
|
|
"US National Debt / Deficit - How does it end?"
Badly, very badly.
Badly if you aren't already sat down when the music stops. But if you get a chair early (buy btc and/or gold) then after a few months of maybe supplementing your food intake with insects and dodging bullets you would be sitting pretty. |
|
|
|
Ffs, someone bring in some old/new/unmentioned religion that DOES'NT involve anything connected to christians or jews.. please reference something we can get our teeth into that we have'nt heard on our own doorstep before we slammed the door..
 scuba preacher: "can I at least leave you a leaflet?" octopus: "Only if I can eat it, otherwise it's ink time!" |
|
|
|
You're welcome. OK, thinking a little more, just to correct what i said about "filter against time"... that is wrong! You need to loop through new_investments (ordered by earliest time) as you process them and add to the bankroll. And I guess all bets will need to be timestamped: pseudocode: BANKROLL = bankroll now
T1 = last time this func called
loop through NEW_INVESTS[] by time
{
A_NOW = NEW_INVEST[NOW]->AMOUNT
if A_NOW > 0
{
BANKROLL += A_NOW
T_NOW = NEW_INVEST[NOW]->TIME
NEW_INVEST[NOW]->AMOUNT = 0
NEW_INVEST[NOW]->TIME = 0
PROFIT = 0
loop through BETS[] from T1 to T_NOW
{
PROFIT = PROFIT + BETS[NOW]->PROFIT
}
calculate shares for all investors based on BANKROLL and PROFIT
T1 = T_NOW
}
}
So with the above method you're server only needs to work hard at playing and storing all timestamped bets as they occur. You could run profit share every day or hour. Now you also need to cover the issue that an investor might invest twice (at different times) between calls to your function. I suppose a simple workaround would be to disallow new investment for a user until any outstanding investments are processed. Otherwise you will have to implement a queue to hold timestamped new investment entries in user schema. EDIT: Actually a better structure might be to make a new table just for timestamped new investments, have an entry that contains user ID, then just process that table and empty it when done, this would elegantly solve single user making several investments quickly. The table would grow down over time as new investments were made so you wouldn't even need to order it before processing. |
|
|
|
|
I guess you could timestamp all new investments.
Add new user vars:
btc_invested_new
btc_invested_new_time
Then when you calc payouts filter against time.
After payouts are calculated you can zero those user vars and add btc_invested_new to the solid btc_invested.
This will mean you can call Investors_Profits() less frequently without issues.
NOTE: // find site bankroll
will not be a single call but will be part of the function loop.
bankroll will grow as your function processes new investments.
|
|
|
|
you're referring to churches i assume. Or cultists that claim to follow the teachings of the bible.
I guess so.. All religions are cults, just when they get to a certain size they become "religions" because folk are afraid of badmouthing them (fear of getting murdered). The believe in a creator does not necessarily mean the belief in the teaching of a church.
what if i told you you can believe in god without following the pope or other figureheads?
Sure, I know I'm free to believe in anything. I just find the word "god" very loaded, like the word "gay", I mean in reality I like to consider myself quite a gay person, but as you well know that word now has a new meaning and people would think I was saying "I am a homosexual". The same goes for the word "god", if you say "I believe in god" then many (almost all) will think you are religious. So the word is gone for me, sorry 'bout that! |
|
|
|
Nice theory, but you're missing the point.
These simulations must have had makers, makers more advanced than us.
So no matter if the universe is an advanced hologram or other piece of machinery, or an actual universe. Someone or something must have created it. Something that existed before the simulation or the real thing ran. Most likely something outside of our dimensions.
It's very likely that heaven is somewhere outside our 4D world, say heaven is 5D or even higher.
Is it so weird to call the creator of this reality (or simulation) our god? For whoever wrote the 'program' wrote the rules, would that not make him able to bend the rules at will? Performng miracles in our eyes? He can even change the rules permanently.
The universe is like an advanced computer program, we are part of it, god is the programmer, as well as the PC manifcturer. The angels are system admins and the devil and his demons are crackers.
I'm missing what point? Whose point? Your point?  One could call the simulation programmer/s gods, why not. Doesn't get you anywhere though and I shouldn't think it would gain any favors from the programmer/s any more than an ant in a colony within a tanks on a childs desk. To assume gender (he) in the programmer/s is assumption on your part. The programmer/s would probably not be answering "prayers" but they may take notice or wind back to a system backup if we destroyed our biosphere because we fucked up (nukes, nanotech, bioweapons etc). Our time is the system tick of the simulation, if the simulation were paused, fast forwarded, stopped, rewind, etc then the simulants would be unaware. A simulated universe would probably be fairly simple code (describing fundamental quantum laws) running on a very fast system, think "computronium". everything "emerges" from it following the evolutionary process. It's not like our bodies are designed in a 3D modelling tool, instead it's more likely that we are complex "self aware" cellular automata. The evolution process itself would still be "real". Another point that upholds this theory is the fact that Self correcting code structures (ALA Claude Shannon information theory) have been found at the heart of quantum mechanical laws, It seems these codes underpin the very fabric of our reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4we were not discussing the implications of what would happen if there would be a god or gods, we were discussing the existence of one. so apparently you do agree there is a god, even if you refuse to call it god. I'm open to the possibility that we are simulants. But notions of god, bible, religious texts do not interest me in the slightest. Such nonsense is just an insignificant subset of true reality (whatever that might be). Notions of god have always been put forth by dumb lazy monkeys trying to get other monkeys to do their work for them. And the irony of the situation is that the enslaved monkeys are only too keen to propogate the nonsense, I can only assume driven by fear and ignorance. |
|
|
|
You seem to believe there is no god, while claiming you only believe in things that have been proven by science.
Ergo, you make an unspoken claim that science proves the absence of god.
Show me the proof or the logic behind your claim.
If you fail to do this, than you must agree that there is, or at least might be a god.
You can not say with certainty that there is no god, where is your proof?
Are you dense or trolling? 1) I have the belief there's no god. 2) Science doesn't prove nor disprove its existence. It doesn't suggest it either. Those two things are completely unrelated. I insist though You claim I said science disproves god, where did I do that? Then don't ever claim you base your beliefs on science. You are religious, and you believe in abiogenesis, and possibly the Greek god Gaia. The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea. Ah ah https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawmanSeriously, wtf Aminoacids (more than a dozen atoms in each!) have been detected in deep space. Three possibilities: - God plays a joke on us, there is no aminoacids in space
- A god made them
- One by one the atoms reacted together and finally it made those molecules
You chose 2, I chose 3. I guess we will never agree. obviously no 3. that chemistry combination will ultimately out compete other more mundane chemistry, even if that random combination occuring is tiny it will spread because it has advantage once it exists, that is the process of life. |
|
|
|
Nice theory, but you're missing the point.
These simulations must have had makers, makers more advanced than us.
So no matter if the universe is an advanced hologram or other piece of machinery, or an actual universe. Someone or something must have created it. Something that existed before the simulation or the real thing ran. Most likely something outside of our dimensions.
It's very likely that heaven is somewhere outside our 4D world, say heaven is 5D or even higher.
Is it so weird to call the creator of this reality (or simulation) our god? For whoever wrote the 'program' wrote the rules, would that not make him able to bend the rules at will? Performng miracles in our eyes? He can even change the rules permanently.
The universe is like an advanced computer program, we are part of it, god is the programmer, as well as the PC manifcturer. The angels are system admins and the devil and his demons are crackers.
I'm missing what point? Whose point? Your point? One could call the simulation programmer/s gods, why not. Doesn't get you anywhere though and I shouldn't think it would gain any favors from the programmer/s any more than an ant in a colony within a tanks on a childs desk. To assume gender (he) in the programmer/s is assumption on your part. The programmer/s would probably not be answering "prayers" but they may take notice or wind back to a system backup if we destroyed our biosphere because we fucked up (nukes, nanotech, bioweapons etc). Our time is the system tick of the simulation, if the simulation were paused, fast forwarded, stopped, rewind, etc then the simulants would be unaware. A simulated universe would probably be fairly simple code (describing fundamental quantum laws) running on a very fast system, think "computronium". everything "emerges" from it following the evolutionary process. It's not like our bodies are designed in a 3D modelling tool, instead it's more likely that we are complex "self aware" cellular automata. The evolution process itself would still be "real". Another point that upholds this theory is the fact that Self correcting code structures (ALA Claude Shannon information theory) have been found at the heart of quantum mechanical laws, It seems these codes underpin the very fabric of our reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4 |
|
|
|
Here is something interesting. It is also possible what most think is God, was actually ancient aliens. Look up the wiki article on Ancient Astronaut theory and how certain events in the bible could've been weapons of mass destruction from aliens.
even if that were to be true, where did the aliens come from? where did the universe come from? We could always be a simulation you know, and what we think we know isnt actually real, but a fabricated universe with fabricated laws. The simulation hypothesis certainy does imply that it is more like that we exist within a simulation than not. Basically it goes like this: [1] Do you think (extrapolating current technology) that we will ever be able to create realistic VR, say we could learn to jack into our nervous system, or maybe even transfer our conscious mind (scan it) into a machine? The point being do think it is possible to simulate a universe such that the observer/user would never know, the sensory input banwidth needed is not that great even by todays standards. If you think yes, then proceed to [2], else leave. [2] Do you think that if some civilization somewhere ever does reach true VR technology then they will for some reason kill themselves shortly afterward. In other words do you think there is some universal barrier that will dissalow simulation universes from being created/ran. If you think that civilizations will develop them and run them then goto [3], else leave. [3] Do you think we "humans of planet 3 of sol" are the most advanced in the universe (technology wise), if not then goto [4], else leave. [4] If just 1 simulation was running in the "real" universe then the chance of us living in a simulated one is 0.5 (50/50). [5] How many simulations are running out there, take a guess, call it N, the chances of us living in a real universe is 1/N. for all we know simulated universes of the complexity we perceive may be quite common. Of course the creators of our simulation might themselves be simulants, perhaps in a higher than 3 dimension universe, asking the same questions, it may be simulations all the way down. |
|
|
|
When buying usb hubs for the minion boards, is their any reason to get USB 3.0 or will USB 2.0 do just fine? Planning on having them go in a TP-link type setup.
The receiving interface is USB2 from what I remember reading, some people reported probs with USB3, i read it in the TPLink setup/guide thread, link to it is available in this thread i think  Having said that @wiwi reported USB3 was good for him, so obviously not all USB3 is bad, luck of the draw I suppose. You should also try and get a hub that will accept DC12V power supply, and power it from one of the boards PSUs (less power use and less power issues like ripple and groudloop). Same goes for TPLink, cut it's power cable and wire to a board PSUs +5V line if you can. |
|
|
|
Nope theres not  not a clue how to asseble the fan to heatsink you could use long bolts from hardware store. put four in your fan, then rest on heatsink so the heads mate into the grooves, then flood superglue round head and hit it with activator. then you can take the fan off and you are left with four perfectly aligned fan studs. pop fan back on and use nuts to secure. head may need cutting off and superglue thread straight in. |
|
|
|
 How come this drawing would have been done if the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? It's impossible! Thus it exists! Ramen Ramen to that! |
|
|
|
This is just embarrassing... Total ignorance of the problem satoshi was setting out to solve.
It's an op-ed piece, i don't think it reflects the views of Forbes... Yeah, but it is still embarrassingly ignorant. It is. It may not reflect the opinion of Forbes. But it does reflect badly on Forbes. Certainly to anyone who understands bitcoin and why it was created in the first place. |
|
|
|
...
yeah, but if you were to expect a rally, then you'd also need a reason for it to actually make a rally.
...
Seems paradoxical, but no... If enough people expect a rally then that itself will be the reason. I think the big bubbles are psychological noise (silly fuzzy human wetware) on top of the systems "real" growth. |
|
|
|
The logo tiles nicely into a chain-mail like design, giving scope for some interesting uses:  |
|
|
|
Shipped my order within Europe. So, I expect more B1 orders will ship soon.  Edit: If anyone need some Arctic Freezer 7 rev2 coolers, I have 20 for sale at $16 each. PM me if interested. Congrats! Out of interest how did you realise it was shipped, were you PMd or did you check your TechnoBit account? ( May put an end to my compulsive account checking  ) |
|
|
|
|
@promojo, OK, account converted.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
