I remember it being graffitti’d at Wean Hall at Carngie Mellon circa 1990. (about half way down architect’s leap for fellow CMU-nies, around fifth floor maybe?).
Could financial markets once again be underpricing the risk of a global conflict? In the nightmare scenario, the descent into a third world war began two years ago, as Russian troops massed on the Ukrainian border.
These idiots forgot Russia annexed Crimea a decade ago.
And at the time they moved fast enough and the Ukrainian government was inept and the military untrained and underequipped to do anything about it. That’s why the status quo was accepted like that.
In the first days of the Ukraine war a lot of western leaders were rather sceptical of Ukraines chance to defend itself and more than happy to write them off and accept a new order, if it doesn’t interfere with the Russia business.
Something similiar can also be seen from the US in WW2, were before Pearl Harbor it seemed the US was mostly accepting and seeing how to deal with a new world order, with Europe under Nazi control.
To them the danger never arises from any status quo or a quick change of status. Only a continued long lasting changing process is what they fear and get troubled by.
Europe had been moving towards the slaughterhouse for years, and by 1914 a conflict was all but inevitable—that, at least, is the argument often made in hindsight. Yet at the time, as Niall Ferguson, a historian, noted in a paper published in 2008, it did not feel that way to investors. For them, the first world war came as a shock. Until the week before it erupted, prices in the bond, currency and money markets barely budged. Then all hell broke loose. “The City has seen in a flash the meaning of war,” wrote this newspaper on August 1st 1914.
Apart from this, nothing in the article is worth reading.
Investors have their heads buried in there arses or rather in the charts and balance sheets. I think they delude themselves into believing that by buying selling what essentially amounts to promises, they think they are doing important work.
The only reason all that industry exists is because the government keeps devaluing and taxing our savings. The day we create an asset with easy transactions and that doesn’t devalue, with ease of exchange, they’ll be out on the street.
Sure, it’s shorter, but is it really a summary of my comment, or just a more technical explanation?
My comment tries to teach via example, while theirs tries to teach using math. I chose my method because it’s the most accessible to people who aren’t math-inclined, but also because it takes the least cognitive effort to understand, which is an important quality for a social media comment to have nowadays.
Besides, you obviously don’t have to read the whole table (you already know how to count to 25). Just scan the right column to see what it’s doing differently.
Haha. At my partner’s job, IT had to send out an email clarifying some message from a VP wasn’t phishing because so many people reported it for being suspicious lol.
Yeah, problem is that I’m not aware of anyone who actually writes octal numbers as “OCT123” nor decimal numbers as “DEC123”. It’s basically a made-up syntax, supposed to look plausible for both date notation and number system notation. It’s part of the joke, which LLMs won’t understand.
Except for the part about using OCT or DEC to talk about octal and decimal numbers is ok.
From wikipedia:
In programming languages, octal literals are typically identified with a variety of prefixes, including the digit 0, the letters o or q, the digit–letter combination 0o, or the symbol &[12] or $. In Motorola convention, octal numbers are prefixed with @, whereas a small (or capital[13]) letter o[13] or q[13] is added as a postfix following the Intel convention.[14][15] In Concurrent DOS, Multiuser DOS and REAL/32 as well as in DOS Plus and DR-DOS various environment variables like $CLS, $ON, $OFF, $HEADER or $FOOTER support an \nnn octal number notation,[16][17][18] and DR-DOS DEBUG utilizes \ to prefix octal numbers as well.
For example, the literal 73 (base 8) might be represented as 073, o73, q73, 0o73, \73, @73, &73, $73 or 73o in various languages.
Newer languages have been abandoning the prefix 0, as decimal numbers are often represented with leading zeroes. The prefix q was introduced to avoid the prefix o being mistaken for a zero, while the prefix 0o was introduced to avoid starting a numerical literal with an alphabetic character (like o or q), since these might cause the literal to be confused with a variable name. The prefix 0o also follows the model set by the prefix 0x used for hexadecimal literals in the C language; it is supported by Haskell,[19] OCaml,[20] Python as of version 3.0,[21] Raku,[22] Ruby,[23] Tcl as of version 9,[24] PHP as of version 8.1,[25] Rust[26] and it is intended to be supported by ECMAScript 6[27] (the prefix 0 originally stood for base 8 in JavaScript but could cause confusion,[28] therefore it has been discouraged in ECMAScript 3 and dropped in ECMAScript 5[29]).
I think 0o31 would be the “correctish” way a programmer/computer scientist would talk about it.
files.catbox.moe
Hot