Here's my latest bet. I'd say it's a near certainty he'll still be in custody after the 15th.






Yes, it was me who bet on the draw! But I didn't think it would be a draw, it's just that when I placed my bet the odds of a draw were at 1%, and I was able to bet a very small amount with a huge potential percentage return if the prediction was correct. Naturally, it wasn't But the final score of 2-1 to Leipzig does demonstrate that perhaps the odds of a draw in reality were more than that 1%. This in general is how I bet - not so much on things that I think will happen, but where I think the odds that are offered differ from the chance in reality. I'm not saying this is a good strategy, it's just the way I do it

I'd disagree with this. Russell drove well in a single race but failed to win. This doesn't compare to Hamilton's relentless dominance year after year, and his ability to win in adverse conditions, such as the way he's streets ahead of most other drivers in the wet, or his insane drive to victory in Turkey last season. Russell drove well in that one race, and you can certainly argue that the victory was taken away from him through no fault of his own, but I think if Hamilton were in that same position there's a good chance he'd still have won the race by over-ruling the team instruction to come in, as he did to such good effect in Turkey. Really you only have to look at that one race in Turkey to understand how good Hamilton is... what happened to his team mate Bottas? I lost count of how many times Bottas spun or was overtaken, I think he eventually finished somewhere like 14th, and was lapped by Hamilton in the same car.

It's not coincidence that Hamilton is in the best car. The best car can take their pick of drivers, and they will pick the best. Hamilton and Mercedes is best driver in best car. That's why he keeps winning.

In the UK, TV news and other media outlets often convert measurements into a more readily comprehensible alternative. For example, a newsreader might say that x 'is 34 metres long, or as long as three London buses'.

Do other countries have similar examples? And if so what are the units of measurement?

Here, it tends to be:

Distance: London buses (or sometimes double-decker buses)*
Area: Football pitches
Volume: Olympic-sized swimming pools**



*I have no idea why the height of the bus is relevant in a length measurement. Or whether a London bus is longer or shorter than a non-London bus.
**I assume 'olympic-sized' because that is a standard, whereas other swimming pools will vary - although the fact that most people will have zero experience of an olympic-sized pool is for some reason overlooked.

Is there anyone on here who is either from the region, or else familiar with the intricacies of its politics? I have a basic grasp, but would like to learn more. I've never really understood how much power Aung San Suu Kyi actually had within Myanmar. I know she was technically the leader, but the military certainly still held huge power even prior to recent events, and held prominent positions within the government and a sizeable proportion of parliament. I'd like to understand to what extent Aung San Suu Kyi actually ruled the country, and to what extent she was a populist figurehead. I'd particularly like to understand her response (or lack of response) on the Rohingya issue. How much of this was her own personal decision, and how much were her potential choices constrained by the military or other actors.

I don't think we'll ever agree, but I want to point out that I do enjoy the discussion.


I'll also mention that I agree with this point. Absolute equality of income/outcome is a terrible idea, is grossly unfair, hampers innovation, ennervates drive, subdues talent and, as you point out, history demonstrates this quite clearly. I favour instead (the impossible dream of) equality of opportunity, where people aren't held back because they happen to be born in a poor country or a poor area of a rich country, and where people born rich aren't propelled into positions of authority simply because of their name. I do think that inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed, wealth inequality more than income inequality because elite income is derived largely from existing wealth. Talented people, hard workers, visionary entrepreneurs deserve to be wealthier, I'm not disputing that, even in some cases much wealthier... I just think that the excesses should be reined in a bit through more effective progressive taxation, and specifically a wealth tax. You mentioned in a previous post Bill Gates turning his attention, wealth and considerable talents towards the common good - this is laudable, and I'm a big fan. But he's an outlier amongst the ultra rich. In general, deciding whose lives get to be saved shouldn't be the preserve of individual billionaires, but rather of democratically elected governments and international not-for-profit bodies. Let someone have millions of dollars if he's earned it, fine, but maybe when it gets to a hundred billion we should be thinking it's a little obscene.

FTFY: Any former President that holds Congress in such contempt, when it has done as many great and wonderful things as Congress did, is a contemptible former President.



FTFY: They are impeaching a President that won't accept he lost a fair and democratic election, and then attempted to stage a coup in order to retain power. It's like they are saying, "Look at the facts."


Seriously though, his behaviour in instigating an attempted coup—and that's what it was—was sufficiently egregious that even some Republican senators voted for impeachment. But I agree that the outcome won't be fair. There's no chance of that two thirds majority voting to convict, as the senators begin the familiar split back towards voting along traditional party lines.

Regardless of my tongue-in-cheek comments above, and regardless of the details of this particular case, and whether or not he is guilty, a two party political system can never be healthy or fair. It is forever oppositional, and more interested in subduing the opponent than in brokering compromise.

It's a complex issue that stretches back for centuries. Perhaps the most effective resolution to end the perpetual conflict would be to split Myanmar into separate countries along traditional ethnic and religious lines. But I'm simply a comparatively uninformed outsider; I don't profess to be an expert or to have knowledge or understanding of the nuances of the situation.

My simplistic overview is that Myanmar has been home to many quite distinct and separate ethnic groupings over many centuries (probably millennia), and there has always been some degree of tension between these groups, often escalating into outright conflict. Buddhist vs Rohingya Muslim is merely one facet. The appearance of the country as a single unified entity has always been a bit of an illusion, it's less of a cohesive whole like England or France, and more a empire of disparate factions. And the words 'empire' and 'England' take us to the next point, and the arrival of the British in the nineteenth century. Britain promptly took control, and consolidated their position of authority by pursuing their familiar tried and tested strategy of divide and conquer. If there are ethnic and religious divisions amongst the natives, a colonial power will always work to emphasise these, casting the opposing religions and ethnicities as the bad guys. And then when Britain left after WW2, as always happens when colonial powers leave, they left behind the chaos and exacerbated local tensions that they'd helped to foster. But Aung San, the head of the provisional government, made conciliatory moves towards the various ethnic leaders and promised them all equality in the new nation. Perhaps things would have been different if he'd remained alive, perhaps he would have found a way to keep everyone happy. But he was assassinated, leading to civil war, military uprising, and the chaos of today.

So we're left with a nation that isn't really a nation, ruled by a national military that isn't really national and doesn't represent national interests. It's difficult to see how Myanmar can remain a single nation, or why anyone other than the military would want it to remain so. Unfortunately, the military have the guns...

Yes. Vaccinating everyone in a country (or sufficiently close to everyone to confer herd immunity within the country) is obviously a good thing, but is certainly not the end of the virus. Producing enough vaccine doses is one challenge, as is (in some countries) getting the anti-vaxxers to accept it. Pfizer does indeed present storage and transportation challenges. AFAIK the AstraZeneca vaccine is the only one at the moment that can be used with 'normal' refrigeration.

But the bigger issue is that nations are interconnected and this is a global problem, hence the 'pan' in pandemic. Whilst the virus continues to circulate amongst some populations, it will continue to mutate, and to produce vaccine-resistant strains, which can then infect those who've already been vaccinated against the original strain. Key here is how quickly the pharmaceutical companies can re-engineer their vaccines to address mutated strains... and anecdotal evidence suggests they can do so relatively quickly, in weeks... so I think we have grounds for cautious optimism.

Atletico dropped points in their last game, but the key consideration is that D3L1... they've only dropped 9 points all season so far.
Even if either Real or Barca win all of their remaining games it will be difficult for them to reach the top of the table. Atletico just aren't dropping enough points to be caught.

I like him, too, and I'm really glad he got a drive for 2021, and in one of the best cars. He definitely deserved it.
It will be nice to see Verstappen have a rival, but my big hope is that we start to see both Red Bulls near the front to put pressure on the Mercedes cars, and remove that 2 vs 1 strategy advantage that Mercedes had last season.

Certainly standards of living are in general rising around the globe as a historical trend. I'm not arguing against this point, rather I'm saying that I don't think this should be used to suggest that inequality doesn't matter.

During 2020, Elon Musk increased his personal wealth by $140 billion. Meanwhile 400,000 people die of malaria each year, who could be saved by a $2 insectidal net. We can't conclude from this that the poor are in general getting richer, therefore wealth distribution is irrelevant.

But sticking to developed nations, and your point around weight, there is certainly an argument that poorer people can only afford cheaper foodstuffs, which tends to be calorie-heavy junk food. Yes, most people can afford basic sustenance, but even then there is the issue of increased foodbank use.


_{https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/}

And there are other indicators that poverty is worsening, the ratio of house price to income being an obvious example (chart below for the UK since the 1960s). Even anecdotally, a generation ago many family households had a single wage-earner, and an 'average' job provided sufficient remuneration, whereas nowadays the trend is towards households having both parents working as a single income stream is no longer sufficient to keep above the poverty line. The key driver of this trend being increasing inequality. "Trickle-down" is a myth perpetuated by the elite.

Serena cruised through without any trouble. She is as we'd expect amongst the favourites to win the tournament, but her recent gland slam performance is patchy - and particularly so in Australia. She's actually only made the final there 3 times in the last 10 years. If we add to this the fact that she's lost her last 4 GS finals, prior to which she was W23 L6, then it doesn't seem that likely that she'll win the whole tournament. Of course it's Serena and you can't ever rule her out, but still... results overall and particularly in Australia do suggest she might struggle.

I think the OP did well. He had an exit point that guaranteed considerable percentage profit. In retrospect it is easy to look back at price movements and say that you could have sold at a higher point, in practice it is harder, and it's next to impossible to sell at the absolute peak. When prices fall after a sustained rise, the fall is often dramatic. It is in general much better to sell in a market that is still rising, as the OP did.

And of course given the dollar price volatility of bitcoin, whilst he sold at 30k and the price is now nearer 50k, can any of us really say with confidence that the price will never drop back below 30k again? If/when this happens it would obviously give the OP a lower entry point and the option to increase his bitcoin holdings compared to his original sale point.

If it does happen, he can increase his quantity of bitcoin. If it doesn't happen, he's already doubled his money and is happy with the outcome.

Me too. I've said it a few times, but it's a good site. Clean, appealing UI, intuitive UX. It's very straightforward to use, without the visual clutter you get on a lot of sites - which makes Futuur good for mobile, too. Add to this their particular slant on betting categories, which goes a long way beyond the traditional 'sports' focus... there's a solid product here with a unique offering.

#Proof Of Authentication
Bitcointalk Name:  Cnut237
Bitcointalk Profile:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1118642
Current amount of Posts (Including this one):  3125
Amount of merits for the last 120 days:  131
BTC Address:  bc1q35y86908na4ep32ww38ha4gk4ssuvw89m2leqz 113PwHCBeSTLfQeUd4VKCVog8uyujyTgcT

(edit: BTC Address to meet campaign requirement)

^{[CITATION NEEDED]}


Income inequality has risen dramatically over the last half century, and continues to do so. I've chosen an income chart below, but that isn't even the main driver of inequality. Return on capital is the biggest issue. The richer you are, the better the investment opportunities you have, and the more your existing wealth grows. If rate of return on capital can exceed rate of economic growth, and in the absence of a wealth tax, then 'rich get richer' is inevitable. Meanwhile, 1 in 3 people don't have access to safe drinking water.


_{https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality#:~:text=Inequality%20in%20the%20US%20has,experience%20of%20other%20OECD%20countries.}

Perez can make a big difference. Whilst Mercedes are likely to continue to have the best car, Verstappen has demonstrated that the Red Bull can compete fairly well with them. One of the issues last season was that Mercedes could very easily beat Red Bull on strategy, because they always had two cars at the front to Red Bull's one. They could go split strategies every time, and force Max to pit whenever they wanted him to by making him cover off one of the Mercs. If Red Bull had two cars at the front, that strategic advantage goes. Even more, if Bottas continues to struggle, and we have a situation with Hamilton and two Red Bulls at the front, then we enter a scenario where Red Bull can force Hamilton to pit whenever they want in order to cover off one of the Red Bulls. And then suddenly Red Bull have the advantage, even if their car is a bit worse than the Merc, because they can control how the race plays out.

This is why the second driver is crucial at top teams. Bottas' underperformance in recent years hasn't been an issue, because there wasn't a viable competitor with two good drivers. That may change this time around with Verstappen and Perez.

I have 10 open bets on the bitcoin markets at present

I know that some of the markets are very thin on the bitcoin side, but it is early days and bitcoin betting has only recently been added to the platform. It's a good site with some really interesting betting categories that you don't get elsewhere. I think it will do well, and already has that important unique angle.

This angle is covered on the BBC page (excerpt below). It does make sense, really, when you think about it.

But I would expect him to continue with Mercedes in 2022 - after winning the 2021 title
2021 will likely be a Mercedes procession, but 2022 is a reset for the whole field, and should result in closer racing with more teams being competitive. Hamilton has complained in the past about not having real close competitors, it's something he seems to relish - as I'm sure all racers would - and he'd surely be eager to test himself against rivals on a more level playing field rather than simply retire.

This is why the logarithmic price charts are so important. Bitcoin has on many occasions demonstrated exponential growth, which means a linear chart effectively smears historical lower highs into irrelevance, and as such makes patterns difficult to identify. Compare the two charts below.

A) Linear. This suggests that early 2021 represents an improbable and unlikely to be repeated price peak, with a near-term price crash almost inevitable.


B) Logarithmic. This reveals a clear rising trend and the potential for considerable further growth this year. Perhaps even by an order of magnitude.