To be fair many of the rules and regulations did develop to make investors safer, or keep stability (just look at the fraud, shading messes and instability that has occurred on some of the crypto exchanges, especially in the early says, when there were few if any rules or regulations).

The problem comes from the fact that the big players have full time jobs and and billions of dollars to pick apart the rule book, split hairs, find loopholes, and dodge enforcement, so that, one way or another, the rules don't apply to them. The little guys, well they have actual jobs, no time, and little money, so they have to just follow the rules.

The other part of the lag in death figures is reporting lag -- it takes a while for death certificates to be filed, numbers to be collated at the county and then state level, and finally passed up to the CDC and other organisations tracking such things. In practice that can be anywhere from several days, to a couple of weeks and varies state to state. All up that probably adds another week of so to the lag, but with pretty high variance.

If we can manage to have options of Chloroquine, Hydroxycloroquine, AZ, Zinc, and one other treatment then I pretty sure I can put together a full controlled trial of the various combinations and find at least one that comes back as helping with a statistically significant p=0.05. This assumes, of course, that one skips the slightly more subtle multiple-trials Bonferroni statistical corrections, but that would be easy to do (its subtle math, and who really knows that much about stats anyway). If we can manage successfully produce a wide-scale controlled trial with positive results (and with 5 options and all combinations thereof, odds are that we can), I would be unsurprised to find a large amount of anecdotal evidence in favour of it, especially if you add in a little subjective validation, and extra attention paid to these particular drugs.

Sounds like you are trying ridicule Antifa and downplay their ideas. Maybe you are trying to point people away from fighting fascism when it appears, and maybe thatâ(TM)s a lot more than youâ(TM)d like to admit.

Facebook already IS the Internet police. âoeIf you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.â. â"Rush

People like you sneer at unions but itâ(TM)s the only way for workers to protect themselves against management. Do you actually think the CEO has your best interests at heart?

While it is nice to see an article discussing real issues in mathematics, it is a little sensationalist in places. While formalized proofs amenable to computer proof checkers are definitely a good thing, it isn't really the case that math is going to fall apart or turn out to be wrong any time soon. For starters a surprisingly large amount of mathematics has actually been fully formalized to that level: check out metamath for example. Second, while complex theorems at the edge of current research may potentially have an issue (it was issues with some of his proofs in very abstract homotopy theory and motives that made Voevodsky a convert to computer formalizable proofs), the vast majority of math is used routinely enough by enough mathematicians (and verified by students as exercises) that errors are at this point vanishingly unlikely. Finally, if by some bizarre circumstance something did go wrong, the result would be a patching of axioms assumptions to make most of the mathematics we have true again -- at the end of the day math has to be useful; as Russell said in Introduction Mathematical Philosophy:

We want our numbers not merely to verify mathematical formulæ, but to apply in the right way to common objects. We want to have ten fingers and two eyes and one nose. A system in which âoe1â meant 100, and âoe2â meant 101, and so on, might be all right for pure mathematics, but would not suit daily life. We want âoe0â and âoenumberâ and âoesuccessorâ to have meanings which will give us the right allowance of fingers and eyes and noses. We have already some knowledge (though not sufficiently articulate or analytic) of what we mean by âoe1â and âoe2â and so on, and our use of numbers in arithmetic must conform to this knowledge.

The practical applications of mathematics to science and engineering have been so rich and so effective that any new "corrected" theory of mathematics that didn't recapitulate the same results would simply be ignored or rejected. We would instead modify axioms, or logic itself until we could regenerate much of the mathematics we have.

That's the good case where you just have to move a factory. For many industries it is all about complicated supply chains, which you can't just move wholesale because you likely don't control a large portion of. Unentangling a supply chain enough to make it tractable to move the parts of it you can control to the US could easily take many years in and of itself, if it is really possible at all. What do your contracts look like? What do the other companies tangled up in your supply chain have in the way of contracts?

The detailed data, particularly demographic data, and modern computerised data analysis, has weaponized it in a way that wasn't possible before. Historically there was a certain amount of guesswork in Gerrymandering -- you could use, say, racial demographics because they were reasonably visible, but it was still fuzzy. These days we have a whole lot more data available with a whole lot more detail (just look at the level of analytics Facebook and Google can do solely for the sake of advertising), and a lot more compute power to analyse, slide, dice, infer and predict. Modern Gerrymandering looks very different indeed.

Even if I completely buy into that line of thinking it in no way justifies the current price of bitcoin. The current market for bitcoin used as a currency just isn't big enough for that sort of valuation. And the current spike only makes things worse: given the volatility its value as a currency decreases due to the uncertainty in exchange. The fact that its a fundamentally deflationary currency just exacerbates the problem. Why buy anything with bitcoins? If you just hold on to them they'll be worth twice as much next month, and a thousand times as much next year ... which just leads to a deflationary spiral where their only value is not as a currency but as a speculative investment.

When bitcoins value is based on their actual utility (and actual usage) as a currency or means of exchange I might be interested: there is some good technology and ideas there. But that is not at all what the current valuations are based on -- they are based on bitcoin as a speculative investment vehicle and are spiralling out of all relation to any actual value.

Assuming you are living off the returns of your capital (and for many fortunes in the Gilded age and before this was true), if the rate of return on capital is lower than the rate of inflation you will end up eating into the capital to maintain the same lifestyle. In this way you can damage fortunes via inflation. As you note, this need not be the case -- a reduction in lifestyle, or an alternative source of income can ensure no effective damage to capital. This is, of course, rarely what happened.

Market forces did not end the Gilded Age, it was ended by two world wars and significant inflation (in part for countries to pay of debts from the wars). These were major shocks to accrued wealth globally, breaking apart, or inflating away the value of, most family fortunes. Sure there were no Guillotines, but I don't think we want to go through the disasters of the 10's , 30's and 40's again just to get some wealth distribution back.

Just for reference the important caveat is no logic that can encode basic Peano arithmetic can be consistent and complete. There are plenty of axiomatic systems that are complete and consistent, even complicated mathematical ones (the first order theory of complete ordered fields, a.k.a. the real numbers is complete and consistent). Also a stronger logic can prove the consistency of a subset contained within it. Thus the first order theory of Peano arithmetic can be proved to be consistent via second order logic. Finally you may also want to look up Tarski's indefinitability of truth -- a theorem which gives the results you have here as a corollary, but is simpler: in sufficiently power logical systems you can't even define a truth predicate.

Indeed, it is completely unusable which is why absolutely no one uses it, and there are no significant projects of any kind that use it as a language.

You are simply mis-reading what is stated in that document. The US citizen parent had to be resident in the US for ten years (prior to the birth). How can I be so certain? I am in a similar category, but was born outside the US to a US mother and a father who had not been ten years resident in the US. I had, since birth, US citizenship until I renounced a few years ago.