|
It will stay with us, like the flu, even if it is more contagious or whatever. Another thing is that it is controlled and we can live a normal life, which I believe could have been done a long time ago, taking restrictive measures only with those who are at high risk of developing a serious clinical condition, and not with everyone.
|
|
|
|
To me this smells like a sale of an account and that the same guy who sold him the account has given him the merits to rank up.
Or no sale, just someone sending merits to rank up their sockpuppet because their main account is red-tagged. I don't think that's the case here because he's opened a stupid thread asking about what merit is in the serious discussion board. It looks to me as someone who bought the account and is lost. Moreover, the other account was red tagged almost three years ago. AFAIK, merits given are not reversible, not even by the mods. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Admins (or maybe just theymos himself) can reverse them but it's only done in very rare cases - I know a couple of examples, one was abuse by a merit source, another one was a hacked account. This is probably not one of such exceptional cases. In the long run these few merits won't matter. This user is unlikely to get any more. Txs, I didn't know that. Can one know if post was deleted by himself or mods? If himself (posts look of good quality), it would prove the point.
Good idea. |
|
|
|
It's very much possible, and I think the mods should reverse those merits if possible, it's not even showing properly for which posts the user recieved merit for so I guess that the topics were deleted to bury the posts.
AFAIK, merits given are not reversible, not even by the mods. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
I will explain in chronological order. First I see this thread opened in the Serious Discussion board: What is merit? I've been about to report the thread because the subject has been discussed many times and I don't think it's suitable for that board. OP should have done research before opening the thread. If that's a newbie in the Newbies and Help section it's OK I think but not there for a junior member. But then I go and see his profile and I see the account whas created in May, 2016. It wrote only one post then and the account was not used until last December when it started to apply for bounty campaigns. Then, I check the trust but there is no feedback whatsoever. But finally, I look at the merit and I see he was given 10 merits in a short period of time by the same guy who has been given negative trust by @marlboroza: " March 08, 2021, 09:49:30 AM: 3 from Hobo66 for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored) March 08, 2021, 09:48:53 AM: 3 from Hobo66 for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored) March 08, 2021, 08:55:29 AM: 4 from Hobo66 for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)" To me this smells like a sale of an account and that the same guy who sold him the account has given him the merits to rank up. I have no way to prove it but it looks very suspicious to me. What do you think? |
|
|
|
These games are luck based and proven that there are no startegy as such that could work for long else gambling sites, or casinos would have to shut as everyone would be making money from it. So users should just play and have fun instead of thinking how much money they can make it or just playing for making money might not work if not lucky.
I totally agree. Oh dudeeeeee, I may agree with you in this ideal, but don't be so rude, okay  Now we get gambling for fun! Yeah, well, as long as have a clear idea that we are playing a negative return game, I'm OK with gambling for fun. We might be "lucky" at some point and leave the casino that night with more money than we took in, but there are no strategies to beat an EV game. |
|
|
|
-snip
Your comments seem focused on retail investors but we are in a mainly institutional investors phase. Institutions buying Bitcoin are not so focused on the price now being high or not, rather on buying a pristine asset which is going to surpass and substitute gold as the best reserve asset in the world. This is mainly because the cost of capital has gone up a lot during the past year and it seems it will stay like that for a while, being Bitcoin the best-looking asset protect value. |
|
|
|
I don't know where you got that from or if you did it yourself but that wasn't accurate months ago and it seems not to be accurate today either. According to: https://companiesmarketcap.com/assets-by-market-cap/ gold market cap is $11T, we haven't surpassed Apple ($2T) and Amazon ($1,5T), etc. |
|
|
|
Would like to know what is the best strategy when using the slots games. Or maybe some good number spreads on the dice game. Any and all advice or inputs are welcome. For I am new to the game in any advice is helpful thank you and good luck.
Lol! What a bunch of garbage. Best strategy is not to play. The advice they can give you is useless. The reality of these games is that they have a negative mathematical expectation and the more you play and the more "strategies" you use, the more money you are going to lose. |
|
|
|
In theory this doesn't look like a really good idea as less cards means less bluffs which means less chances of your enemy making a wrong call. But then again this utterly compels me and I might just try it in a game or something and see how this goes. I'm thinking this is not a foolproof strategy so there's still a margin of loss that I should take into account but a few tweaks from this strat could make you a poker god at your local pub, if this strat indeed works.
That you have written is garbage and you know it. Definitely.
In general, beginners tend to play way too many hands especially when they're the small blind or big blind at their table. They also tend to bluff a lot more than what is required, which results in suboptimal gameplay.
Staying consistent with a mathematically optimal strategy is just as important as getting lucky hands, imho.
I mostly agree but lucky hands are only important in the short-term, if you are thinkin of short-term wins. Over the long-term we all get the same "lucky" hands, it's how you play them that matters. |
|
|
|
Is there a way that you can ensure being difficult to predict at Poker? For example, if you never bluff, people will eventually get to known that and it will reduce your ability to profit from good cards? Anyone there knows techniques or trick to avoid being easy to read?
What you ask is known as balancing, but it is only worthwhile to start balancing at medium levels. At micro limits or at the lower levels of land based casinos, people don't think too much. At those levels it is enough to select your starting hands well and bet for value aggressively. When you go up levels, you will find more opponents who think and pay attention to what you do. So, if you are one of those who only bet when you have good hands, they will not pay you for value, and if they do it will be because they have a better hand than yours. This is where the concept of range balancing comes in. For preflop plays, for example, let's say a 3bet range of value is TT+, AJs+; Aqo+. If you want to balance you have to put into the range other hands that are not as good but may have good postflop playability depending on what comes out, such as 22-55 or 78s-TJs. For postflop play the same, you can't just bet or re-raise only when you have a good hand, you have to start doing it with other hands, and it's better to start with semi-bluffs and later on you will put in pure bluffs. |
|
|
|
|
This is not surprising. Banks and similar institutions first ignored bitcoin. Then they ridiculed it or said it was a fraud, and now they have already realized that Bitcoin itself jeopardizes their existence, so they are going to move to offer crypto custody and/or trading services. The traditional banking system is dying, not only because of cryptocurrencies, and either they adapt or they will disappear.
|
|
|
|
It is weird to watch the republicans and right wingers try to make Biden look leftist, it is kind of funny. I am a true progressive, the ones that you call communist (no, I am not a communist, I am a progressive, there is a HUGE difference, I hate communist countries) and Biden is closer to you guys then to me, it is weird to see just because he is a democrat you guys think he is a leftist.
Of course taxes will be increased for people who do not work and just make tens of billions of dollars a year, not only that is a good thing, but many republicans wants that as well, taxes higher for them should mean taxes lower for you, that's the point of it, and I think Biden may increase taxes for everyone, rich or poor alike, and that is not something any progressive would want, why would I want a country where even the poor would pay high taxes? What is so socialist about that? I want a nation that taxes people who make 1+ billion dollars at a very very high rate, and people who make under 100k nearly nothing, that is what progressives want.
This is the eternal excuse that the democrats make. No one in the United States make "tens of billions of dollars" a year and if they do, then they will be intelligent enough to move their earnings to offshore tax havens. The details of Biden tax plan are already out and according to it there will be an increase in income tax for everyone who earns more than $400,000 per year. Now there is a huge difference between earning "tens of billions" a year, and earning $400,000 per year. There is a common confusion: many people do not know what a millionaire or billionaire is. They think a billionaire is someone who makes a billion dollars a year. You even hear politicians or journalists saying that, I'm not surprised many people among the general public are also confused. A billionaire is someone whose net worth is at least a billion dollars, which is quite different. That was even said of Trump. He doesn't make billions of dollars. His net worth is around 2.5 billion and up until now he hasn't made a billion dollars a year in income. So, I agree with you. No. There aren't people in the States making "tens of billions of dollars" a year. |
|
|
|
Rather than a simple relationship, I understand you to mean that there is a causal relationship. That two events are apparently related does not mean that there is a causal relationship between them, and, in fact, most of the time there is not: The more films Nicolas Cage makes, the more people drown. |
|
|
|
Hello. I see different platform like nexo, blockifi, etc... that can borrow you crypto or stablecoin. I'm here to ask if you have a strategy for example you borrow btc with an interest rate of 6% and then you use it on defi with 8% APR. Thanks for helpful.  <snip> ... I just put 1.57 BTC on their platform, making 6% a year that's like 0.1 BTC a year. Even if I didn't let that compound, within a few years that'll be making me a lot of money from just a little bit of my Bitcoin and completely passive income. .... until the platform gets hacked.... I don't know why people get into these problems. Bitcoin is going to go to at least $100k this cycle (maybe quite a bit more) and will easily hit $500k to $1M next cycle. What do you want more profitability for? Just buy with the money you save and don't put your bitcoin at risk for a little more profitability. |
|
|
|
|
This is yet another sign of increased adoption and demand. We see news like this all the time lately, like the news about Visa. With this, the price in the short to medium term can only go up.
|
|
|
|
They are very clear about the data sources, and I linked to them in my later post. This is huge quantities of data from reputable official sources around the world - sources that are independent of one another. I appreciate that the link that you gave was to a proper paper on a proper website... but it's still just one guy's opinion. It's certainly not as absurd as the Satan Soldiers guy in the hat, but still, it lacks weight. It's one paper by one person. He can say 'meta-analysis' all he likes, it's one person's paper and one person's conclusion. Statistics can certainly be presented in many ways. I'm asking why the opinion of one person should outweigh mountains of evidence from massive datasets which, independently of one another, confirm the same trend. The Covid debate is the same as the climate debate. Just because lobbyists from fossil-fuel companies climate-skeptics exist, it doesn't give their evidence-free non-arguments any weight. They need more than to exist, more than to shout 'this is my opinion', they need credible evidence that stands up to scrutiny better than that of the overwhelming majority of experts.
I was not questioning the reliability of the sources, rather I was saying that I wish the data could have been presented in another way as well so that it would be clearer and we would not have to calculate. For example: let it say the total excess mortality that there was in UK in 2020, both in number of deaths and as a percentage. It is clear that there were more, then we have to see what they were due to, if only to COVID-19 or to this disease and other causes. Regarding the arguments backed by experts, I can agree that they give more reliability but for me they are not a guarantee of truth because today for example experts will tell you that you have to eat 5-6 times a day in a diet based mainly on carbohydrates and I am clear that this is a scam behind which there are many economic interests. This would be another debate but as it is so clear to me that the current nutritional guidelines are a hoax I tend to be skeptical about the opinions backed by a lot of experts, especially if there are many economic interests involved.  Hey franky1, man. What happened to you? Did you have a nervous breakdown? I have run out of words to respond to the profound ideas that you have exposed, I almost cried with emotion. |
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to point out that the official discourse does not talk about global warming, it talks about climate change, which is the term used by cnut237. It is clear that the climate changes, another thing is the speed of change and if it is caused by human action, but the change of term makes me suspicious.
|
|
|
|
That's like an 11% fee. I don't know if that's considered normal these days because I haven't made a transaction for a while but it seems expensive to me. Is that because it has so many inputs? Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can enlighten us. Also, consider moving this thread to the Development & Technical Discussion section. It probably belongs there and I think it won't get as many replies on this one. |
|
|
|
-snip
It is clear that investing in the markets over the long term can give us very good returns, especially if we take into account compound interest. A 6% return, OK. 12% is a bit difficult for a retail investor, and 18% is directly impossible. It is normal to consider that an S&P 500 fund will give you returns of 10% and inflation will take away 3%, leaving you with a net 7%. We have to think that there are people who invest in actively managed funds or other indexed funds that give lower returns. Some may give more, especially in the short and medium term. The SP500 is often considered the benchmark. No. Sp500 is not "a quite safe investment". It is 'dancing on a knife's edge'. Remember "past performance is no guarantee of future results"
If the Sp500 is not a safe investment, nothing is. Past results, of course, do not guarantee anything, but they serve as a guide. Companies work if they beat inflation, otherwise they tend to disappear. What will the 500 largest U.S. companies do in the next 30 years? If we discount events such as the coming of the third world war, it is normal that they will continue to grow and beat inflation.
I wouldn't call 10% a "reasonable" growth.
Why? It's the average. Will it work for the stock market? It will just overinflate the price and then god help you if you're the one just entering retirement when this pops as the first generation that has achieved 100x gains cashes out and only 1/100 gets put back in!
This example is too exaggerated. We have no rational reason to think so. We might as well stop going out on the street just in case we get hit by a lightning and it kills us. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
