Supreme leader Joe Biden 

Regime changes never go smoothly. Putin has maybe <10 years before he dies of old age or until someone within his own regime poisons him so it isn't necessary for anyone to meddle in Russia's own demise. If they take drastic war action that significantly effects global interests then maybe the analysis changes. Until then, there needs be no action.

Interestingly enough, the PPI figures have consistently dispelled the notion that the CPI increases are due to corporate greed and an increase in profits. Raw materials cost more and so if the price to manufacture goods increases, it shouldn't be a surprise that consumers are paying higher prices.

The odds are terrible either way. House edge on slots are upwards of 10% depending on what the platform sets the odds to. There isn't a way for us to tell what the odds are on the bonus buys unless the casino publishes those odds to its players. Assume that it wouldn't be any better than what the house edge already is for that particular game.

Stick to table games if you're looking for "profitability" (which is to say, you won't lose as much. Gambling is not profitable).

Gambling is haram by any interpretation of the Quran so if someone were to trade Bitcoin for short term profits, it could be considered impermissible. Islamic nations aren't generally susceptible to individual liberties and I don't see that translating to financial liberty either. Bitcoin is only as Islamic as the theocrats in power want it to be because here's nothing in Islamic writings that would even begin to capture Bitcoin's compliance with Islam.

That being said, the Middle East is becoming slightly more westernized so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're making BTC investments. I just wouldn't make the connection that it's because Bitcoin's Islamic. There is no relation.

Precisely, I don't know what OP is on about.

Ditch fiat currencies entirely and your crypto is still going to be taxed by the jurisdiction you live in. If you don't agree to taxation, then leave the jurisdiction. I'm not one of those "taxation is theft" type of people and I couldn't imagine in a world that's only cryptocurrency that taxation magically disappears leaving the state to generate zero revenue.

Crypto gives you the freedom from unlawful or unnecessary government control with your finances. There isn't anything unlawful about taxes.

If you foresee yourself needed liquidity within the immediate future, then deposit, do not invest.

It isn't actually an easy question to answer because it depends on your personal financial situation. If you choose to invest, then diversify and you'll see a positive ROI that will be some multiple of your original investment over a period of time. If at any point your financial system changes and you need liquidity, there's a chance you'll lose a lot of money.

Don't go "all in" on investments. Keep some amount of cash on hand relative to your living situation so that you create a buffer.

Depositing all your funds and sitting on it means you lose purchasing power every single year. It's not advisable.

So he essentially admits that there were not 1:1 assets and that user deposits in FTX trading could withdraw from the same user funds that the FTX exchange was operating on, which is to say there never existed a 1:1 ratio of underlying assets, hence the liquidity issue. He said there was a "generalized withdrawal" when everyone began to withdraw so the guys that were told they had their funds 1:1 with assets got screwed over.

He's skirting most of the questions by feigning ignorance, as if he couldn't possibly be aware that his company never kept true to their own terms of service and had user funds dabbling into other corporate entities with much riskier enterprises. He's speculating as to what happened because if he says concretely what happened, then he would have been aware of his FTX's misconduct and therefore his own. He's trying to avoid criminal charges and keep his liability only to the civil level (fines, not jail).

Twitter files part 2: https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600

See part 1 here: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394

Part 1 is less interesting, it merely covers the Hunter Biden laptop story suppression which we could see happening in real time in 2020. There isn't anything new.

In part 2, Bari Weiss uncovers the shadow banning of "right" leaning accounts on Twitter in order to suppress certain content. @libsoftiktok, popular right-wing account that uncovers deranged LGBT left wingers that have a odd fascination of posting bizarre clips of themselves on TikTok, was one of the accounts shadow banned.

In 2018, Twitter general counsel Vijaya Gadde denied the usage of shadow banning and suggested it was a conspiracy theory. Nonsense.

This isn't really a story about electric vehicles as much as it is about an energy crisis. They could ban gasoline powered vehicles if they needed to reserve gas for power plants and generators if they really were strapped for energy.


Of course they wouldn't ban EV's. No one is disputing that. The concern is the government telling people they don't have the right to travel because of their own energy policy. If they wanted cheap energy, they have the ability to source it. Energy is the holds civil society together. Without it, things begin to unravel very quickly.

Is Indonesia big on sex tourism that such policy would dissuade tourists from visiting? How many single men/women could possibly be dissuaded by such policy and to what extent would businesses be affected?

Virtually none, would be my guess.


Which businesses would this target? Does a country with a high Islamic population really attract a level of tourism that would no longer exist if sex outside of marriage was banned. If it's longstanding policy for cultural reasons, then it wouldn't make any difference to begin with.

Odd snippet from the article:


So what about people that live together without sexual relations?

The remaining separation between private banks and central government is eroding. There isn't much left, if at all.

I figure most users of traditional banking systems understand their privacy is nonexistent. CBDC's just give the government more power to control fiscal policy within their borders. Not that it was too difficult before, but in if the currency supply could be modified simply by generating new digital tokens, or crediting people's digital accounts, seems to be a more efficient way than dealing with a balance sheet full of assets.

It's not as if this is a new concept, because most banking is digital already. Merely an attempt to completely wash the paper currency system and switch to something completely digitalized.

There shouldn't be any limit. 225 USD is a large volume of money relative to median income earners in Nigeria. You can't think of 225 USD from the perspective of someone in a developed country.

People that aren't cashless in Nigeria can probably get by within the limits of the withdrawal limit, but that isn't what the primary issue is. This sort of story isn't new at all. Government can easily step in and limit cash withdrawals if they want to, or freeze people's accounts/implement spending limits.

The money that exists in these bank accounts aren't actually yours, they're the governments.

It's dystopian for state induced suicide, let alone state induced suicide to save on medical bills. State plays no role in voluntary execution of its population.

It starts with medical assisted deaths for people with chronic conditions, and slowly that window begins to expand far beyond what its original intent was. In Canada, you can apply for medically assisted suicide only exhibiting symptoms of depression. So no physical pain, but the state will gladly help execute you should you be so inclined.

Also, Canada has "free" healthcare. State is incentivized to save costs through medically assisted suicide.

DoJ can choose to take the evidence they have, present it to a grand jury, and SBF faces indictment.

However, it is completely up to the DoJ if they choose to present that evidence to the grand jury, and the amount of evidence they present. They could either choose not to gather a grand jury and present them with the evidence which would absolve SBF of any criminal liability, or they could present limited evidence that would incline the grand jury to not indict.

There's plenty of ways for this probe to result in nothing if the lawyers in the DoJ don't want SBF to face any repercussion. Charging someone is a political decision, regardless of what evidence comes up in the probe.

Nearly all assets are going to sink during a recession, don't expect crypto to save you.

UK's entered a recession and the projected unemployment rate is something like 6+ percent. Global recession's probably already here and will last well into next year. You don't need to look towards economist or whatever notable people and have them opine on the obvious. The economic forecasts all predicted a recession many quarters ago, and those models are fairly reliable.

Do not get caught up in the "fear of missing out" aka FOMO.

Applies to Bitcoin as well. You should take a gamble on something if you're doing it our of impulse. Naive investors will feel the need to participate in whatever short term lucrative financial plot even if it means sacrificing their principles out of concern they'll miss the boat. And sometimes they might even try to catch a knife falling down by seizing on an opportunity that's past its prime.

Salaries for everyone is up, not just CEO/executives.

The reality is the world got wealthier over the last decades, especially in the age of computer technology. The labor market isn't broken, we merely live in an age where people's skillset needs to be diversified and the skillet that someone might have in their 20's might change throughout the course of their life. Having a full time job in a market that requires a skillset contrary to what you're trained on or what your education is in doesn't point to a systemic injustice. It means you need to educate yourself in what's marketable.

Experience matters, period.

The more experience you have, the higher your skillset is and the more you're paid. If you're looking for cheap labor, hiring a fresh graduate from an institution of higher learning will get you what you need, but it won't get you an experienced employee. If you're looking for a job, don't expect to be paid the same as someone with experience no matter what your educational background is.

The way institutions of higher learning are ran, you'd think they would teach a bit of critical thinking skills with how much they charge students. Apparently not, you only get those sort of soft skills in the real world in a professional capacity.

I'm generally okay with KYC for physical casinos because they'll ask you upon entrance, not after you deposit money, win, and try to withdraw.

You don't have to comply with a KYC either, refuse the ID request and just leave the premise.

I'm sure a lot of underage gambling happens on online crypto casinos, I'm not sure what the solution is. IMO, it's unreasonable to ask for KYC for every user just because a minority of them might be underage. Parents should police their children better instead of passing that off that responsibility to platforms.

I wouldn't get too complacent. It starts with the umbrella term "cryptocurrency," and then it ends with Bitcoin. The reason there hasn't been much focus in the past is because crypto hasn't made up any sizeable portion of the economic activity in the U.S.

At this point, it's probably too lucrative of a market to ignore. They're worried about tax revenue. IRS would target someone that hasn't reported transactions in the hundreds of dollars, so they probably view crypto as a major threat to their collection attempts. Or, they could be targeting crypto as a whole because they see it as a threat to USD.

The regulatory framework exists if they want it to exist. The government hasn't hesitated overregulating out of hesitation of ineffectiveness.