I don't think anyone is suggesting that, it would be absurd. Worker representation at board level would not mean pick a random worker, or even consult every worker, merely have someone (or more than one) person there who represents the interests of the workers rather than the interests of the executives or the shareholders.

I may be cynical, but I suspect this is often a token PR gesture. Difficult to imagine a board discussion running along the lines of "We've made an extra $1bn this year!" "Great! Let's give half of it to charity!"

I'm not suggesting that companies don't have costs, of course they do. The question is more about whether companies should be run solely for the benefit of shareholders.

Yes, exactly. And if the company contributes to the wealth and well-being of wider society, too.

Here you go*, Cnut.

$k   #times passed threshold
21   0
20   1
19   1
18   2
17   3
16   4
15   4
14   1
13   4
12   8
11   9
10   14

You're welcome.

*previous disclaimers apply.

It might be useful. A few quick calculations reveal that historically it is best* to buy on a Thursday and sell on a Wednesday (based on daily closing prices).



*prices may go down as well as up. trade at your own risk. advice may be nonsense. calculations may be wrong (i said they were quick). illustration is purely for illustrative purposes. that's why it's an illustration.

It had looked like the rally for ETH might be running out of momentum, it had been treading water around $320 for most of this week... but now it looks like the surge has resumed, $340 gone, heading on towards $350.
It is difficult to see where this might end, as we are obviously well well below the ATH, and both DeFi and the prospect of ETH 2.0 staking still look very appealing.

For a sustainable price rise, we do need periods where the price levels off before resuming upwards - as we have seen here. An all-out surge with no break cannot be sustained and inevitably leads to a big sell-off at the end, where a substantial proportion of the gain is wiped out. Hopefully we will not see that this time...

They are both good fighters, but Fury is better than Wilder. The only person who can beat Fury is himself (as with the downward spiral he went into after beating Klitschko) - it's all down to his attitude and motivation, but I think we can assume he'll be sufficiently motivated for the 3rd Wilder fight. The first fight was an aberration and Fury was still on the comeback trail, the second fight was I think more representative of their abilities and was very one-sided. I can't see Wilder winning.

Thanks for this. It might also be interesting to see how many times BTC has moved above a certain value. Presumably very straightforward to implement if anyone wanted it, just looking at instances where a cell value of '1' has a value of '0' in the cell immediately beneath.

If you leave it to the market to determine what is fair, in a society where there are more people than there are jobs, then this leads to exploitation. Should we really allow wages to be forced down to (or below) bare subsistence level? Should we allow monopolies and cartels? Medieval feudalism? Indentured servitude? Excessive inequality is bad for everyone. Rich people hoard money. Poor people spend all of it and keep it circulating in the economy. There needs to be something in place to act as a brake on the excesses of capitalism. Whether this should entirely be government responsibility, or whether it should start by changing company structures and cultures instead is open to question. But surely something is required. People who are more talented, have great ideas, have more drive etc, do deserve to be paid more. But the people at the bottom deserve to at least be treated like humans. Remember we are talking about people working long hours for low pay.

I agree with you on this part. If a job can be automated out, then do so. Inefficiency is stupid. But instead of removing a job and putting the profits in the hands of the already wealthy bosses, why not use the money instead to fund a job that benefits society as well as keeping someone in employment?

It probably depends on how it's implemented. If we are considering a huge economic downturn due to Covid19, and vastly increased unemployment, then a UBI at a sufficient level to enable people to work part-time, and so spread the available employment across more people, might be desirable. Of course as you raise the level of UBI, you raise the cost to the government, which suggests increased taxation of the wealthy (as increased taxation of the poor would defeat the object). The various trials so far have been implemented in various ways, and have mixed results... there is no point in my quoting evidence for anything, as it is easy to find evidence that supports the opposite side. But a sufficient level of UBI might lessen the importance of money in the eyes of many, and be a first step towards pointing society to a different goal. You may be correct that UBI might initially be implemented as a sticking-plaster that is barely sufficient... but even so, anything that reduces inequality reduces the psychological power of money, even if only slightly.

If we look longer-term, then I would argue it is likely that unemployment will be extremely high as more and more jobs are automated, and there are ever fewer jobs that can be done better by people than by machines. And inequality will increase as the labour costs of the rich disappear. UBI funded by taxation of the rich may be inevitable eventually. Some of the ultra-rich are already getting a bit twitchy about levels of inequality... see for example the below, from Robert Johnson, a Soros hedge fund manager.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich

Yes, it does look like he'll miss two races, even if he has no symptoms.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/sergio-perez-coronavirus-positive-british-grand-prix-racing-point-drivers-a9646916.html


Indeed. It hasn't been said much, but the quarantining combined with the compressed calendar with races most weekends does make the season a bit of a lottery. Consider Hamilton, leading the championship now by 5 points - if he catches CV19 it could be the end of his championship hopes. Let's ignore fastest lap for simplicity, but if he misses 2 races, then the dominance of the Mercedes is such that you'd expect Bottas to win both, picking up 50 points and taking a huge championship lead of 45 points. If Hamilton then came back and won every remaining race, with Bottas finishing second, then Hamilton would only claw back 7pts per race, so it could then take 7 races (7*7=49) for Hamilton to regain the lead... and by that point there could well not be 7 races remaining.

Yes, agreed. It's a matter of closing loopholes faster than they can exploit them, and is an endless task.


Thank you! Every time I've mentioned UBI on this forum I've been shot down; this is the first time I've found someone else who thinks it might be worth a go.

Exactly. The fact that it didn't happen in the final game makes any protest even more irrelevant. Villa were clearly playing for a draw in the final game, because a draw was all they needed at the time. If that extra point that Bournemouth are complaining about had come into play, then Villa would have needed a win - and so would have played for a win.

Bournemouth were unlucky, but they can't suggest that a different decision means they wouldn't have been relegated. Mistakes happen in football, whether its refereeing or VAR. Luck is a factor. The idea is that mistakes and luck should average out over time. Complaining about it now makes it look like sour grapes, and casts Bournemouth in a bad light.

The team dynamic is a crucial factor. I think there is zero chance of Verstappen or Vettel going to Mercedes whilst Hamilton is still there. Remember the chaos and infighting of the Hamilton/Rosberg years? What they have now in Bottas is a very good driver who is willing to accept (to the extent that any driver ever accepts it) that he is the number 2 in the team and a back-up to Hamilton. Mercedes have a world-class, multi-champion lead driver, and a second driver who is high enough quality to ensure that Mercedes remain constructors champions. And the team atmosphere is calm. Mercedes gain nothing by bring in Verstappen or Vettel. Hamilton is a winner, and if Bottas is good enough for 2nd place, then how can they improve on that?

It depends a lot on knowledge level.

If someone doesn't know why a coin is rising, they might buy in so that they can then sell quickly and make a profit.
If they don't know why a coin is falling, they will stay away in the expectation it will fall further.

But if a coin is falling, and someone understands what is causing the fall, and from an analysis of the underlying merits and strengths of the project they understand that the coin will rise again in future, they will buy and use this as a cheap accumulation phase.

"Buy when the price is falling, sell when it's rising" isn't always a good idea... it depends on the individual's assessment of the reasons for the price movement and the accuracy of their prediction of how the price may change in future.

The imminent arrival of 2.0 is a factor, as is the market recovery after the price suppression of CV19. But the main reason is probably the rise (and FOMO) of ETH-based DeFi.
The bull started by ETH then extended to other alts, and after that even to BTC. ETH is the reason that BTC broke and held above $10k.

That's only for individual staking. There will no doubt be pools and indeed exchanges where you can stake any amount of ETH, certainly well below the 32 threshold. But people will be buying ETH in the anticipation of staking rewards, yes, not so much to reach 32, but just to accumulate more than they have already.

Yes. Intrinsic value is the value that is intrinsic, not extrinsic! That's all, by definition.
If we start to talk about supply, then immediately we are talking about an external (extrinsic) factor, i.e., an attribute that is not inherent (intrinsic) to the thing itself.

I do however have a minor disagreement with the quote above; I'd contend that intrinsic value can exist subjectively. Air and water have intrinsic value, yes. But the intrinsic value of air is different for humans (oxygen) than it is for trees (CO2). Intrinsic value is what remains once all external factors, price, market, supply, are stripped away. Intrinsic value is the value inherent to a thing, and this is subjective dependent on the audience. For example, a photograph of an ancestor has intrinsic value to a descendent, but not to a complete stranger. So I'd suggest that intrinsic value exists in the relationship between the thing and the audience, once everything else is disregarded.

I am very impressed that you are able to discuss quantum physics in a second language! For me, it would be impossible.

Science advances by teaching us that our previous truths were inaccurate or mere approximations. Perhaps we will find a way to exceed the speed of light, although this is speculative in the extreme. It may need negative mass/energy... but at present is limited to thought experiments.

I don't think there is such a thing as absolute time. It can only have meaning within a reference frame. Certainly time from the perspective of an elementary particle is utterly different to time as experienced by a human in everyday life.

Particles and waves are often discussed (by me, too), but these are just convenient representations. An elementary 'particle' can perhaps best be considered as an excitation of a quantum field (Quantum Field Theory). It is fields that underlie everything. If we think of the Higgs boson as being the particle that gives other particles their mass, then this becomes difficult to conceptualise. If we think instead of the Higgs field, it becomes more explicable.

Consider neutron decay. A neutron does not contain a proton and an electron, that somehow burst out from it, it is rather that a change in the excitation of the neutron field causes changes in the proton and electron fields. There are no particles, there are no waves, there is simply 'particle-like' and 'wave-like' behaviour which is the result of changes in fields.



I would say that the perturbations of the micro average out to the macro. Similar to how if you look at bitcoin price from minute to minute, you get a jagged line... but look at it over a period of years, and the noise smooths out into an overarching pattern.

He's the expert and has given it a lot more thought than I have... but I've always thought that a vital part of the government's role in current Western societies is to act as a brake on the excesses of capitalism. I'm generalising, but people who run big businesses tend to be interested more in personal remuneration than in the welfare of their lowest-paid employees - which is part of why unions are useful. If you ask companies to make these changes, maybe some will, but a lot won't. There is the possibility that some companies will implement such changes as a PR exercise - Fairtrade is an example here. But I don't think it will become socially unacceptable for companies to exploit workers, because public opinion is driven largely by mass media, which is controlled by self-interested rich people (which is a reason that right-wing parties generally do better than left-wing parties in elections). Whereas if a government implemented a limit on executive pay ratios, or demanded worker representation on boards, then companies would have no choice but to fall into line.

What I am saying is that I wouldn't trust the board of a company to work towards fairness and wellbeing - history demonstrates that they will instead work to line their own pockets. Whether this is because of their innate nature, or because we are indoctrinated into believing that money is the ultimate objective and the ultimate barometer of success is perhaps a question for a different time. Either way, the answer would be for government to create a barrier to their innate nature or to restructure society so that money is not the ultimate aim. I don't think we can rely on this to just happen by itself.

I think a reason that communism failed is that it is so easily corruptible. I think that people who are more talented, who work harder, who are willing to take risks and responsibility, should be rewarded more than others. I am in favour of a degree of inequality because that gives people something to strive for, and a sense of recognition for their achievements. But inequality beyond a certain point becomes undesirable because of the social problems it creates. I think that inherited wealth is a huge problem that creates inbuilt privileges. Wealth as a whole should be taxed. As for Marxism, it is good in principle but will I think become outdated as increasing waves of automation arrive. The power of the proletariat does not exist in a society where there are fewer jobs than there are applicants. Smart contract cryptos such as Ethereum may hasten the demise of workers through automation of white-collar jobs (mortgage broker the oft-cited example). But this is not a bad thing - efficiency makes sense. There is no point to keeping workers in jobs that can be done better by machines - just allow jobs to be automated out, and use the resulting profits to create jobs that benefit society. There is no sense in being a Luddite. Progress through change is desirable.

I suppose, simply, I am in favour of a meritocracy, but with a limit set on how much inequality is permitted.

I hadn't found the thread

This is a good idea and is often suggested by the left. Worker representation on remuneration committees would help, too. But there are limits to what we can expect a company to do, if we don't change the framework within which it is operating. Certain changes need to be implemented at government level, such as legislation on executive pay ratios.

I'm not sure. This suggests that it is better to work inefficiently. There is a difference between keeping a worker in a job, any job, and keeping a worker in a worthwhile job. If efficiency gains are shared more equally, then there is no need to maintain jobs just for the sake of it. If an office worker's job can be automated out, then should we a) keep the worker doing a job that can be done for $0 by a computer, or b) give the job to the computer, take the money saved and use it to pay the worker to do a job that helps society? Again this is a change that would need government-level support.

It's irritating, but understandable that it happened. TV personalities are expected to give an opinion on whatever is the topic of the day. Of course they can't be experts in all (or really any) of these, the subjects are many and varied, so there is only the time to develop a superficial understanding. It's little different from the modern TV news phenomenon of vox pops. If you want an informed opinion on something, get an expert, or preferably experts from both sides, and a mediator, and then have an informed debate. On the other hand, if you want light entertainment with little substance, that's what you get.

A line consists of points and has an infinite number of points. This was explored by Zeno in ~500 BCE, his famous paradoxes of motion - it takes time to travel between two points on a line, but before you can travel to any given point you have to travel halfway to it, before you can travel to that halfway point you need to travel half of the distance to it, etc, to infinity - so it should take an infinite amount of a time to travel a finite distance, because there are an infinite number of intermediary points you must visit first.
The resolution is that velocity always remains finite unless there is an external force applied (Newton's first law). Since velocity is distance/time, the two 'infinities' of an infinite distance taking an infinite time cancel out.
This problem has also been extended to QM as the Quantum Zeno Effect, in which by increasing the frequency at which measurements are taken, the evolution of the wave function can be inhibited.
There's also a point of discussion here on the quantisation of spacetime, and how Planck time, the minimum measurable unit of time, could be interpreted. It is the time it takes a thing travelling at the speed of light to travel one Planck length. Space and time, as Einstein demonstrated, are inseparable, we can't define one without the other. 'Spacetime' is the fundamental 'thing' here.

Yes, Planck's constant. Electromagnetic radiation is quantised. Energy is quantised. The effect of this on the wave function is what leads to only certain energy levels being possible - for an electron in an atom you would need an integer number of complete wavelengths to avoid destructive interference.  

I'm not sure I share the same conclusion. If spacetime is quantised, it wouldn't mean anything to say 'a moment when time flows' or 'a moment when time stops'... because you are defining time in terms of itself.

Relativity and the quantum world are intertwined. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant so, counterintuitively, as we increase the speed at which something travels, we simultaneously decrease the amount of time it takes to do so. Length contraction and time dilation are real and experimentally verifiable. If we consider a photon, which is massless and travels at the speed of light... not 'close to', but 'at', then it makes no sense to even discuss time at all. No time passes for a photon, everything is instantaneous. If we imagine a photon emitted billions of years ago, travelling across the entire universe to hit the Earth today, then from the perspective of the photon, across that huge journey, no time passed whatsoever.