I’ve wondered about this for years. Given the obviously misaligned incentives between a for-profit dating app and its users, dating seems like a perfect area for a non-profit to operate.
I actually find it refreshing that Wikipedia doesn’t cater to the lowest common denominator in the theory section of technical subjects. For sufficiently popular subjects, they often have more accessible explanations on their “Simple English” version of the page.
It is indeed a taxable event. People who exchange crypto for “stable”coins are generally doing so to stay out of the KYC banking realm so they can lie about their transactions to their country’s tax authorities.
I don’t know where you got this advice from but this is precisely wrong from my reading of the rules.
An asset exchange between two non legal tender assets is treated exactly the same as any other disposal and acquisition and absolutely is a chargeable event.
Please tell me this is a joke. The fact tether trades readily on an exchange is a major factor for it being convertible, even if at a price you don’t like.
>>tether trades readily on an exchange is a major factor for it being convertible
... for now
We've seen lots of the crypto exchanges fail to make exchanges for hours to days when things get hot
Official stock exchanges have a standard practice of halting trading in stocks when unusual events happen. Sometimes this cools the market and things get back to normal, sometimes the thing has gone to zero when
If Tether crashes to $0.01, I'd be a bit surprised if it didn't stop being convertible for a significant time.
i pay my taxes. i make money providing liquidity between eth and usdc.
when i'm not lp'ing, i see no reason to switch to usd so long as us-based attestations continue to be solid. the opportunity cost of being in usd on coinbase is missing lucrative nft deals.
One could argue that the airline CEOs acted rationally and strategically—they know the airline industry’s importance to the US economy gives them great odds of a bailout if a black swan event were to occur, so there was more value to shareholders generated by stock buybacks than reserving cash for a worst-case event.
> I can assure you if tomorrow we woke up and the world was 2 degrees hotter and people were dying left right and centre from it, the same thing would have happened with climate change.
That’s the point he’s making though, we’re overcommitting resources to this problem because we can see it. Once climate change is apparent enough for people to panic, it’ll be too late.
> Thousands of people are already dying from this in one small concentrated area in Italy, in a matter of weeks. Shall we just say fuck it and let thousands more die here too? Should the whole world say the same thing? Shall we let the entire economy hit the sort of fucked levels we haven't seen since like WW2?
Looking at the data from Italy, 98% of the people who died were retired, had pre-existing conditions, and were making no noticeable economic contribution. I’m not saying that economic utility should be what determines someone’s value of life, but the argument that spending trillions of dollars to save the lives of some 85-year-olds “avoids economic disaster” makes no sense. If a world leader were acting in a purely Machiavellian manner, they would let the virus run its course as quickly as possible so productivity could return to normal.
May I remind you that the doctor that does in china was 30 years old. This disease does not just kill old people.
Secondly, let's do this mental experiment, let the disease spread - how do you expect society to function, nevermind economy, if ~5 % of the population is dying of pneumonia and 30% are severely ill. I doubt you'll be able to get served as Starbucks.
It’s quite alarming that no country (as far as I’m aware) is taking a more rational approach towards coronavirus policy.
Any attempt to make an argument of this sort in the current panic is being seen as insensitive and met with outrage (“you don’t care about me/someone’s parents/grandparents”).
If the consensus ends up being that we need to put an 18 month hold on all activity and spend trillions of dollars to extend the lives of a few hundred thousand octogenarians, this will be a mistake that resonates for generations.
Also, the current policy being pursued isn’t a simple “spend x, save y lives” trade-off. An extended period of isolation will not only have economic effects (greater poverty, on average, will reduce life expectancy for many), it’ll also result in a higher incidence of mental health issues and suicide. Children will have their educational development severely disrupted. When the calculus on this policy becomes clear, it could be possible that we end up trading many millions of years of aggregate future life to save a million people who’ve already lived very full lives.
I’m an economist, I get your Cost Benefit Analysis. But I think you’re missing two factors: firstly the psychological cost a community where senicide occurs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide).
Secondly, the fact that governments are not rational. This UK government is beginning to wake up to the fact that it will lose all public support in coming months and is making belated attempts to shore up some public support.
> This UK government is beginning to wake up to the fact that it will lose all public support in coming months and is making belated attempts to shore up some public support.
lose support over what exactly? are you foreseeing a scandal of some sorts?
There’s going to be huge criticism over mismanagement of the crisis. The criticism will be at two levels:
1. You didn’t act fast enough and lots of people died before their time.
2. When you did act, it was too late and that has ramped up the cost to the economy.
i was generally curios since some polls indicate growing satisfaction with the ruling Conservative party as well as the PM.
to me it seems that most of the world is in "flattening the curve" mode in order to alleviate stress on their health systems. as such this disease will run it's course and i don't think there will be a scandal in the UK as most countries will be either the same or worse-off. but an inquiry? definitely.
> Any attempt to make an argument of this sort in the current panic is being seen as insensitive and met with outrage (“you don’t care about me/someone’s parents/grandparents”).
IDK, maybe it's just some of us are willing to sacrifice a bit if it means that people don't get turned away from hospitals because they are no longer "economically productive"?
I, for one, would much rather spend a few weeks/months wondering how long I can go without paying my rent as I have no current income than do something like, say, go invade Iraq for a third time.
I read it that way as well—-words do have secondary and tertiary connotations, and any competent journalist knows how to use composition and careful word choice to more effectively convey a particular narrative.
All your examples use 'fallout' about abstract occurrences – not situations where an actual plane-and-jet-fuel crashed-and-exploded from the sky, throwing some actual 'fallout' across a debris field.
As far as I can tell, clean-up crews are having no notable problems with the fallout from the crash. Boeing is scrambling to contain the damage to its business.
Nobody with a full command of the language uses "fallout" to refer to a debris field. It is most commonly used in the abstract sense, to refer to negative after-effects, or else in the technical sense, for radioactive pollution.
As noted in my examples, the NYT regularly uses 'fallout' to refer to non-radioactive toxics emerging from explosions and other activities as well. This usage is also confirmed by many dictionaries.
The use of "toxic fallout" in the 1st link is pretty clearly referring to literal toxic chemicals released. And if you remove the '.' from the 2nd link, you'll see the same in the "toxic fallout" headline there.
The Chicago metropolitan area is not only the third most populous in the U.S., it also has the third highest GDP by a fair margin.
More generally, it tends to be regarded as a much more global city than SF or DC. New York is clearly #1 as far as international importance, but Chicago generally places third behind LA in any serious ranking of U.S. cities based on economic and cultural importance.
Not sure why this is getting downvotes, it carries a lot of truth. Internet-based tech companies like Google have matured to the point where many innovators have left and MBAs have invaded, favoring short-term profit over user experience.
