> "If there ever was a case of exceptional importance," Staver wrote, "the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it."
Kim Davis has been married four times to three men [1][2].
She had twins in 1994, five months after divorcing her first husband, with the biological father being the man who later became her third husband, which seems to point to an affair during the marriage [1][3][2].
If this is about upholding Christian convictions, her own history doesn’t exactly model them.
Wilhoit's Law: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Matt Risinger explains how and why he put an ERV in his house in this episode of The Build Show https://youtu.be/OrG7oG8Tvp8. It seems to be the thing to do of late in to help with air exchanges and still meet the passive house standards.
Between the Feds quantitative easing during the Great Recession and now their buying of corporate bonds (sometimes junk), it’s difficult to discern the true value of companies. Easy and cheap money can make balance sheet appear pretty good at first glance.
The USD losing value relative to peers is helping the market as well. Most companies generate significant revenue overseas but report in USD. As the dollar falls in value they end up with more dollars when converting.
If the dollar continues to weaken then I’d hedge towards the markets continuing an upwards trajectory.
By this standard, the US dollar is down about 10% from its post-COVID crash high (103 -> 93). But over a longer time scale, it's up about 10% from where it spent most of the 2000's: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/dxy/charts.
So I think the answer both "yes, the dollar is signicantly weakening" and "the dollar is still slightly stronger than its recent historical norm".
I’m wondering if that describes this scenario: there aren’t enough dollars, there is high demand for them, but as they get printed they go into securities.
I don't feel I understand well enough to offer much of an opinion, but I think that captures a lot of it. An important addendum might be that a lot of foreign debt is dollar denominated, which means that dollars are often required even to service debt that is not US originated. In my amateur opinion, this is a good primer: https://www.lynalden.com/global-dollar-short-squeeze/
I also suggest Matt Risinger’s YouTube channel. Lately he’s been talking about Passive House construction, which supposedly uses only 10% of the energy of a standard built house.
Adding to PassiveHaus and Passive House (separate standard from the original PassivHaus) standards, look into NetZero, and Perfect Wall (especially Lstiburek's institutional Perfect Wall).
Whoa, let's not go crazy! Just because the naming conventions, which weren't crazy for the day, would cause issues today doesn't mean you get to call my first child, I mean computer, a "Trash-80". I didn't stand for it then and I won't now.
They should do some back testing to verify the validity of the updated software. This would uncover past fraudulent activity and possibly any new bugs introduced by the fix.
I would love to see this experiment done with the d20 from The Dice Lab. They make their d20 dice with "ideally-balanced vertex sums while retaining the opposite-side numbering convention". They explain why this makes for a bit fairer dice here. https://mathartfun.com/thedicelab.com/BalancedStdPoly.html
> They explain why this makes for a bit fairer dice here.
Well... they explain why the opposite-side numbering convention makes for fairer dice. They don't say anything at all about balanced vertex sums other than "we believe it's important".
Just compare the reasoning:
> If a die is unintentionally oblate (slightly flattened on opposing sides), the flatter regions are more likely to turn up when the die is tossed. If these two opposite numbers were 19 and 20 for example, then the die would on average roll high, since these two numbers would come up too often. Having the two numbers add to 21 avoids any such bias in the average number rolled. For this reason, the opposite-side numbering convention improves fairness.
vs
> Equally important in our opinion is balancing of the vertex sums.
This does not give me confidence that the vertex sums matter.
My guess is that the there are a lot of newbies now on Coinbase (#1 app in the Apple AppStore). They are buying the cheapest “bitcoin” without actually understanding what they are buying. This has increased demand for the cheaper of the only three options in Coinbase thus increasing price.
Yes, and I've cashed out handsomely as a result of being lucky enough to predict exactly this.
For clarification: I bought some $1000s worth of LTC when it was under $100 shortly after the Futures news hit. It was pure gamble on my part and I could have easily lost instead of the other way around.
I also bought a few ETH coins when it was around $400 but haven't cashed those out yet. I'm predicting my LTC gains will be wiped by ETH losses.
I wasn't complaining. The "only" was in response to suggesting I made "huge" amounts of profit. I didn't gamble that much, and so I didn't make that much even with the return. My profit was less than my paycheck. 2.5x is better than anything I've ever made in equities (in fairness 90% of my strategy there is selling covered calls on dividend paying stocks) and far and away my best gamble on a percentage return basis. I doubt I'll ever be as lucky as that again.
But I agree it does highlight how insane the crypto craze is.
I locked in gains with LTC a few weeks ago like a rube thinking there was going to be a correction :( Locked in some good gains but missed on 70 thou plus USD....sigh...gotta keep trying though right?
That isn't the way to look at it. Suppose LTC breaks $1000, or even $500. I'll have "missed out" on a lot. But I locked in gains, so I'm net ahead. Timing gambling like this is a fool's errand, in my view.
This is supported by the fact that there is $50-$100 difference between gdax/coinbase and other exchanges. This happened with BTC last week too: on gdax the price hit ~$19000, and remained close to $15000 on the others, before reverting.
I think there's a more nefarious reason. Some guys with deep pockets buying just to increase the price. I want to call it pump and dump, but same happened to bitcoin and it's still afloat.
> They are buying the cheapest “bitcoin” without actually understanding what they are buying.
I doubt people really understand what they are buying whether it's bitcoin or litecoin. If you think you do, well, then most people do. Don't look at "crytocurrency" as the future "payment method", invest it like an asset. Go in low, come out high.
I invested in litecoin because I believe the market is undervalued. It's like a blue chip but will continue to rise for a while. If litecoin is to continue to rise, my bet is stopping at 600 then stabilized until bitcoin pops again. Litecoin in my view will never pass Bitcoin, but it's nonetheless a fun investment to play with.
Kim Davis has been married four times to three men [1][2].
She had twins in 1994, five months after divorcing her first husband, with the biological father being the man who later became her third husband, which seems to point to an affair during the marriage [1][3][2].
If this is about upholding Christian convictions, her own history doesn’t exactly model them.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-cle...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriag...
[3] https://people.com/celebrity/kim-davis-married-four-times-re...