Wall Observer thread
has turned towards poetry.
Capitulation.
A little late to the party but I heard this one recently: Haikus are always Heptadekasyllabic Exactly like this. Though I don't think the party will even start until $3200, and then it could go either way. So meta. |
|
|
|
|
Wall Observer thread
has turned towards poetry.
Capitulation.
|
|
|
|
For fuck sake another dip? I guess it was a fucking fools rally, when the fuck are we going to finally start to recover? I am just getting fucking mad about this shit now, not really depressed just how long could a fucking bear market be.
Check silver or DB stock. (Decade long) |
|
|
|
|
Wonder how many people told their boss to fuck off, then apologized, then told him to fuck off again and what the longest chain was. Bart op.
|
|
|
|
Probably late, but I'd go with Glenfiddich or Macallan. The former is pretty smooth and easy to get into. dammit I chivas regalt that whiskey, and still not used to it, it came in a normal glass with a small glass with ice on the side just drunk it out of the glass with no ice drunk it slow kept it a few seconds in the mouth.... ( tasted better as the first time) curious for the next one  doing my best with this  Should be somewhat similar to Glenfiddich, in the sense that scotches from Speyside are usually smoother than others. Haven't tried that one myself yet. In general, there are a truckload of different flavour profiles though, so trying different ones each time until you get a clearer picture isn't a bad idea. Would definitely revisit ones that I've dismissed at any point as my palette develops though. |
|
|
|
we can approximate the average price paid by people that have BTC now I made it about this far into it(lies, I looked at the whole thing) before losing interest.. Sounds like another smallcoiner TM who bought the top. /sFrom a purely theoretical view point, I applaud the energy put into trying to craft a reasonable fundamental metric for calculating bitcoins price. The reality is that we are still in a speculative market and I feel that is what will drive the price action for a considerable time to come. Disagree with the bottom being in as well. The arguments and metrics he provides indicate that we could still see another leg down as well, which implies wishful thinking on his side to me. The MVRV argument is solid though, and that is indeed expected to play out that way. Pretty sure that nobody is surprised by the notion that volatility will decrease with appreciating market capitalization though. |
|
|
|
Probably late, but I'd go with Glenfiddich or Macallan. The former is pretty smooth and easy to get into. |
|
|
|
https://cointelegraph.com/news/nasdaq-powered-exchange-to-launch-eu-regulated-tokenized-stock-tradingProbably old, but I've fallen too far behind over the holidays to check. Step one towards crypto equity looks about done. Which should drive demand for Bitcoin as trading stock against BTC becomes a possibility that will increase liquidity. Hopefully not too late for capital flight out of stocks into corn in what seems like an upcoming recession. After this it seems like a matter of time until stock and crypto become equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Whew, a Keto Health Coach. Better listen to the guy. Someone has potentially trashed his opsec somewhere around there..... Unless it is intentional, of course. He's a Mensa Member. He doesn't need opsec. |
|
|
|
Whew, a Keto Health Coach. Better listen to the guy. |
|
|
|
My limited experience with raising fish in ponds:
1. Dig a deep hole, as deep as possible. We have rock 2 meters down. Line with fish pond liner (like heavy duty black garbage bags)
2. Add some rocks from the garden onto the liner.
3. Fill with water or wait for it to rain.
4. Research fish native to the area
5. Buy some pond plants the fish like to eat, put in pond and wait a couple of months for them to become established. Add lilies for shade.
6. Buy some baby fish and dump them in the pond.
7. Ignore for a year and let them be fish. Don’t feed them.
8. Be continually surprised at how big the bastards are.
Total set up costs: about $2k, mostly labour for hole digging, lining the pond and materials. Total running costs: $0.
If I was to do it again, I would plan for more comprehensive shade to reduce algae growth. Overhanging trees would be good but we have space restrictions with current pond location.
Main thing for me is keeping an eye on water levels. We tend to lose more to evaporation than we get in rain due to dry climate, so we have to supplement some times. Deeper pond with more shade would help here.
This is pretty much what I've been looking for. Do you have any idea if it's possible to balance out multiple types of fish/shrimp in a way that doesn't have either population dwindle to zero? And to what extent do you have to worry about how many you can eat, or is your pond strictly decorative? +2 WOsMerit |
|
|
|
I've actually been thinking about how viable a salmon or whatever pond/lake/farm on private property could be. I looked into it but found hardly anything useful beyond a basic confirmation that it's possible. Do you happen to have any idea as to how small scaled fish-farming could be made and how economical/costly it would be or have any reading pointers otherwise? Basically trying to figure out if it's mostly initial fixed costs or if it'll cost a fortune in sustaining. Would love a fucking salmon farm on my property.
I'm not sure salmon, being anadromous, can be reared in ponds, perhaps. The salmon farms around here occupy valuable estuary areas and are severely infested with some sort of aquatic lice which then attack the young wild salmon as they come down to the salt water. Same as it ever was. Not sure what the source was, but I found something about small artificial lakes with salmon. Those shouldn't run into the lice problem, at least not for the wild ones as there would be none. Been wondering if I could get enough shrimp to simultaneously make the salmon delicious and sustainable though (e.g. without having to throw tons of shrimps into the lake every so often). Is it even possible to artificially balance an eco-system that doesn't have either population die? |
|
|
|
2) species loss ... ok maybe this is an issue, it's subjective and depends on your feelings though. Massive extinction events have happened regularly in the Earth's past from various means. How much species diversity is exactly the right amount? do you feel like playing god to determine that? humans have cultivated huge quantities of biomass in the form of crops, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, there are probably more animals alive on the planet today than at any time in the past, let's celebrate mammalian abundance husbanded by humans! ... are they just not the "right" animals for your liking? my liking? his liking? should we all be living in teepees and hunting the roaming meager herds of buffalo in competition with wolves and large cats? Who really knows what is the right balance for number of species and quantities of each species that should be alive on earth at any particular time? It's just an excessively complicated question to believe anyone who claims to know the answer, they are just bullshitting you to gain an advantage over you somehow.
Very much the crux of the matter as I see it. Yes, as I have consistently maintained, my preference for the complex and diverse arrangement of forms out of which human intelligence arose is largely aesthetic. You have demonstrated yourself not to be willfully ignorant. You must understand that your preference for a subdued planet brought wholly under the reign of humanity is also aesthetic, a selfish and misguided aesthetic in my view but there it is. I do not demand that you share my aesthetic values, though I will resist the conversion of wildness to commodity to the end. We need natural habitats because it is where we, humans, will at some time spend all of our time in the absence of meaningful high intelligence requiring jobs. With machines already on the verge of doing very complicated tasks much better than us and getting true insight into the nature of things (that they would be probably incapable of conveying back to us-see my other post), we would need nature more than ever. Just one example: a machine is capable of reading X-rays 150 times faster than radiologist (making 250-300K/year) and giving a better diagnosis. How you are going to compete with it? You can't, basically, unless you implement some luddite laws, but then you lose productivity. While I quite appreciate nature I don't see why it would be needed (at the place in time that you are describing). Nature is just one among an uncountable amount of things to keep yourself entertained with. |
|
|
|
^ If you get a proper answer (maybe including a detailed how-to and some additional tips and tricks as a bonus) for THAT question it will be clearly demonstrated that this thread actually delivers.
Legendary 110% thread. |
|
|
|
3) collapsing fisheries stock ... yep totally agree with you here, it sucks, people are stupid and greedy and the tragedy of the commons will prevail any time you get a shared resource situation like this. I think inevitably aquaculture will alleviate this in the near to not-too-distant future. Fish-farming has come a long way fast since price of wild fish started spiking after stocks collapse, locally I've seen some great ventures in exotic fish species, delicacies that were always thought too hard to be farmed, lobster, abalone, white-bait, scallops, etc. In fact, I suggest invest, aquaculture is going to have a great profitable future and its good for our local habitat (I mean who doesn't love to go fishing for realz?)
I've actually been thinking about how viable a salmon or whatever pond/lake/farm on private property could be. I looked into it but found hardly anything useful beyond a basic confirmation that it's possible. Do you happen to have any idea as to how small scaled fish-farming could be made and how economical/costly it would be or have any reading pointers otherwise? Basically trying to figure out if it's mostly initial fixed costs or if it'll cost a fortune in sustaining. Would love a fucking salmon farm on my property. |
|
|
|
The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.
We had that issue in my country. Some background checks were done on the scientists that disagreed with the 97%. It turns out they were funded by an independent policy think tank. Whose largest donor was a large coal company. Sometimes even scientists are corrupt. Show me any significant number of the 97% scientists conducting research into the counter to their own arguments and you'll have true science. If you look for ways to confirm what you believe or suspect you will always find something given enough time. Unless they are actively trying to shit on their own arguments there's no science being conducted. And what I've seen was always the same old same old, namely regurgitating the common consensus. Which is understandable as well, as anything else won't get funded and academia is way more competitive than it should be already. Do I think that going solar and shit like that is good? Sure, but mostly for the decentralization aspect and the thus introduced autonomy of the individual, as well as the fact that oil etc is finite and too expensive. We've had climate changing for longer than we've existed and anyone who thinks that scientists have figured out even a fraction of climate, despite the fact that they can not even accurately predict the weather, is believing in voodoo and fairies. Climate is far too complex for our laughable tools to grasp right now. Maybe in a few decades or centuries we'll have a chance, but as is I see attempts and a bunch of people profiteering off of them. I thought that oil, tobacco, drugs and co would be enough to not actually believe anything anyone says these days. You might be inclined in a certain way, but having firm beliefs and fighting over them seems retarded to me. Especially when the most brilliant scientists were literally driven insane (e.g. Cantor who was put into an insane asylum for his discoveries regarding different types of infinity among many others). Edit: Marked part of your post in bold, as it's precisely the point that I've tried to make here. Small addition, sometimes the majority doesn't even realize that they've become corrupted. |
|
|
|
As for the rest, it’s 2018. Not believeing in science is only fashionable on YouTube conspiracy channels. There’s no scientific proof rings as hollow as the cigarette companies that still claim there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
you have no clue what you are talking about ... skeptical scientists have been treated like filth in the media and public forums by the eco-nazis for that long, so now they just shut up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4we are living in times of crypto-authoritarian regimes when scientists live in fear of putting forward legitimate results, if you're okay with that keep parroting the party myths ... that's not a conspiracy, that's the reality of our time. Are you a weak-minded fool following the mob and their propaganda masters or are you made of stronger stuff that you will be proud to tell your grandchildren about? Not the best way to bring a point across, but certainly very valid. This critique is precisely why I left academia. It's a commercialized shitshow increasingly void of rigour. |
|
|
|
Watching the silver price slowly fall back to $6 over the next decade will be even worse.
From a TA point of view, $10 looks like a very strong support and potential bounce. But, r0ach is always talking about costs of production and oil as the main factor. Oil price is gonna dump really hard over the next couple of decades. As much as electrical cars increase their market share the more affected will be the demand of oil. Main demand right now is coming from cars all over the world. Another interesting side effect is that long distance flights will become even cheaper. I'm sorry. Where do you think all this electricity is going to come from? While there will certainly be plenty of volatility in the energy sector, even "dumps", broadly speaking oil will never, ever, be cheaper in real terms. Even serious industry paid annalists acknowledge that we are past peak EROI, and there is simply no replacement for the energy density of fossil fuels. Does that analysis factor in fusion eventually becoming economically viable or not? |
|
|
|
I would say that quote is bollocks. How many people across the world own a piece of gold jewellery or a gold coin? Gold is far more decentralised than bitcoin (mining and coin distribution is far from decentralised) The quote is talking about potentials. You are talking about what "is". Gold has a history spanning millennia. Hence your argument doesn't make sense until at least an isomorphically equal amount of time has passed during which Bitcoin could have distributed. That amount of time will be lower than for gold due to the amount of people alive now vs the amount of people alive in the past as well as developments in infrastructure (hence isomorphic). But as is it doesn't make sense to compare the level of current decentralization of gold vs Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
