ShankThatSnitch
ShankThatSnitch t1_iymww5t wrote
Reply to comment by Nick_Carlson_Press in Putting the sting in stingray by asian_identifier
From what I remember, it was a stab directly to the heart.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iydrxqt wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Google has to pay $9.4 million because it paid people to say they liked the Pixel 4 by RunOrDieTrying
It's funny cause your are so arrogant, and assholish, and don't realize you are dumb.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iydrodi wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Google has to pay $9.4 million because it paid people to say they liked the Pixel 4 by RunOrDieTrying
9,400,000 ÷ 69,000,000,000 = 0.000136
0.000136 × 100,000 = 13.623
13.623 ÷ 4 = 3.406
Take a moment and re-read the comment, and try and do your math again.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iydqodb wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Google has to pay $9.4 million because it paid people to say they liked the Pixel 4 by RunOrDieTrying
I did confirm, and you are wrong.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iyawvoj wrote
Reply to comment by sweetplantveal in ELI5 Are cows constantly producing milk? by ms_myco
Thats just not true. Dairy cow meat is good too.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iy9wyqs wrote
Reply to comment by ineedabuttrub in Google has to pay $9.4 million because it paid people to say they liked the Pixel 4 by RunOrDieTrying
The math checks out.
I see it as, Google had to spend a tiny bit more on their marketing budget, essentially.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iy9wgmu wrote
Reply to Google has to pay $9.4 million because it paid people to say they liked the Pixel 4 by RunOrDieTrying
"OH nooo!....anyway" - Google.
So basically Google had to spend on extra $9.4 million on their marketing budget, is what the headline should be.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixvid3h wrote
Reply to comment by jbrandon in [OC] - US Yield Curve, mean yield curve spread, and percent of all yield curve combinations that are inverted by MetricT
Well, the Fed is not exactly part of the Gov't. In theory it is separate, but in practice it is more connected. The president can do certain things through executive order, to try and spur economic growth, but there is no guarantee it will work, or for how long. The simple fact is that the way the global financial/monetary system works, basically guarantees cycles of growth, followed by recessions.
There are a few cycles. The 10 year cycle, which is the basic growth cycle, then there is a generational cycle, which is based on major population generations, and when they become earners or start retiring etc. because if causes certain spending habits to change on a large scale, like everyone in a specific generation starting to buy houses and have kids, which comes with a ton of economic activity. Then there is the long term debt cycle, which is more like 70-100 years, and involves bigger economic trends that also include sovereign debt, and the stability of nations as a whole.
There are things that can be done to delay the cycles to an extent, but you can't prevent them from happening, because it all ties into how money and debt works. Watch the video, and you will understand a lot more.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixvf65s wrote
Reply to comment by jbrandon in [OC] - US Yield Curve, mean yield curve spread, and percent of all yield curve combinations that are inverted by MetricT
Well, the only real tool is the fed lowering the Fed rate. The fed could also start doing yield curve control, by buying up specific US treasuries, but this is not a real solution, and just kicks the can down the road. This is essentially what the Bank of Japan has been doing, and is arguably a large factor in why they have super slow economic growth for the past 10-20 years. The other major factor, is their population is getting very old.
The issue with lowering the Fed rate right now, is that they could reverse progress on trying to get inflation under control. The fed and Gov't WANT to cause a recession, because it is a sure fire way to kill inflation. And the reason they would do that, is because the longer and worse inflation carry on, the more devastating the resulting recession will be. So they want to get it out of the way, cause a bunch of bankruptcies and defaults in the short term to kill inflation now, rather than have utter catastrophe later on.
A recession also fixes the yield curve, because is washes out a ton of bad debt, which is a drag on economic growth. Once a bunch of bad debt is cleared away, a new growth/debt cycle can start, and the curve will naturally return to a normalized curve.
​
You should watch this video by Ray Dalio, which breaks down the debt cycles in a very simple way, they makes it much easier to understand the big picture of all this stuff.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixvasp7 wrote
Reply to comment by jbrandon in [OC] - US Yield Curve, mean yield curve spread, and percent of all yield curve combinations that are inverted by MetricT
The reason the yield curve is important, is it tells you how the liquidity will be in the financial system. If you don't know, liquidity basically means the availability of money, and the ease of which it moves around the financial system/economy.
If you look at the first graph on the left, you see the "Fed Rate". This is the rate the federal reserve sets, that determines what banks charge each other to lend money to one another. everything to the right of that are the different treasuries that the US gov't sells, with different maturities, ranging from 1 month to 30 years. In a normal, healthy economy/financial environment, the shortest end of the curve is supposed to be very close to the fed funds rate, and should slope upward the further to the right it goes, because the longer you are loaning your money out, the more risk you are taking, and the more return you should get.
The short end of the curve (1month - 2 years) is heavily influenced by the fed funds rate, and where the market believes the fend funds rate will be going forward in those time frames. the medium/long end (3 year to - 30 year), is determined mostly by the markets expectation of where economic growth and inflation are headed longer term. So this chart basically says, the market thinks the fed will keep increasing rates over the next 9-12 months, but will have to ease, as the economy starts to significantly slow after that, and that our economy is going to remain at slow growth for the foreseeable future.
TL:DR. The reason this curve is such a good predictor of recession, is because bank borrow money from the fed and eachother at the Fed Rate, and loan out money at the longer rates, for car loans, mortgages and business loans. If it costs more for banks to borrow, thank they can charge for long term loan products, they stop lending, which mean businesses invest less, which means less hiring. Regular people are not able to borrow as easily for cars, homes...etc. The banks instead go out and start buying long term treasuries instead to get a guaranteed return from the gov't, which accelerates the inverted yield curve and economic slowdown. So we are basically near 100% chance of recession, and it will remain that way until the fed reverse and brings the front end of the yield curve back down.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixrnt9i wrote
Reply to comment by emremirrath in ELI5: Why does eating sweet things makes us thirsty immediately? by emremirrath
I wouldnt be worried. Not sure why they are jumping strait to diabetes. Sugar and salt both cause cells to lose water and make you thirsty. Unless you are becoming ridiculously thirsty and peeing a ton more, you shouldn't be concerned.
I think people who aren't getting thirsty just aren't noticing it in the same way that you notice it with salt. I think its probably because salt has a stronger effect on your mouth feel, which can make you feel thirsty, even before the salt really effects the water levels in your cells.. also we are much more accustom to eating sugar in ways that also include liquid, like soda and juice, where as salty liquids are pretty much only with soup broth or something.
But salt and sugar both have nearly the same effect on the water within cells, which is what will truly make your body thirsty, past the feeling of a salty mouth that needs to be quenched.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixn1497 wrote
Reply to comment by Jamieflamefame in ELI5: Why does eating sweet things makes us thirsty immediately? by emremirrath
No, this not at all an automatic diabetic conclusion... sugar pulls water out of your cells the same way salt does. Then your cells send the same signals to your brain to make you thirsty. The effect is probably stronger in a diabetic though.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixn0xaa wrote
Reply to comment by jaa101 in ELI5: Why does eating sweet things makes us thirsty immediately? by emremirrath
I am very much not a diabetic nor pre-diabetic, and I get thirsty if I eat stuff that is too sweet. So although you may be right about OP, this is not an automatic conclusion at all. Sugar acts similarly on your cells as salt, is regard to sapping them of their water content. That is why sugar works as a preservative the way salt does.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ixh7yzp wrote
It would take us 80-90 thousand years to get there, unless we massively increase or space travel speed. Now think of how do we get people that far, and is this a viable plan, and more viable than fixing our problems on earth?
Let's fix earth, try out Mars and some Jupiter moons, then we can worry about a planet 24 trillion miles away.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iwns9k7 wrote
Reply to comment by babygirlmochi in Asda limits egg sales to two boxes a customer by VORTXS
Color, taste, thickness of the shell, nutrients.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iwll9sa wrote
Reply to comment by JibJabJake in Asda limits egg sales to two boxes a customer by VORTXS
These eggs have too much nutritional value!
ShankThatSnitch t1_iwll4ed wrote
Reply to comment by GolgiApparatus1 in Asda limits egg sales to two boxes a customer by VORTXS
Yeah, there is a major difference between the budget eggs, and eggs from healthy chickens on a farm.
ShankThatSnitch t1_ivhfasa wrote
Reply to comment by 2147_M in I've been informed that a pig's orgasm is estimated to be around thirty minutes. However, I'm curious to know how they came to this conclusion. What's the science behind it? by hatinsidecat
Yes, and probably after they masturbated it in a controlled lab setting.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iuv5qck wrote
Reply to comment by Cryptopoopy in China’s mystery spaceplane releases object into orbit by ye_olde_astronaut
"We don't know ow where her went. He told us he needed some space"
ShankThatSnitch t1_iuii5ai wrote
Basically bacteria, fungus and oxidation are what make food go bad. Without these things, decay doesn't happen. In fact before certain bacteria and fugus existed on earth, vegetation would just pile up in massive amounts. If I am not mistaken, this is why we have oil and coal. Massive piles of vegetation built up, which allowed for those to slowly convert to fossil fuels, since they didn't get eaten by bacteria and fungus.
So basically the canning process involves a few things.
- Cooking
- Preservatives
- Air tight seal.
You cook the food until all contaminants have died, then you seal while it us hot, which removes most of the oxygen. Since the hot air is thinner, when it cools it creates a vaccum seal with minimal oxygen, and prevents anything else from entering. Canned things can have vinegar, salt, citric acid, or other preservatives also, those also prevent any bacteria growth.
You now have a sterile environment that doesn't allow for decay, at least for a very long time. It isn't 100% perfect though.
ShankThatSnitch t1_j0hjxcy wrote
Reply to comment by ommnian in HTC plans to reveal its Meta Quest competitor next month by elister
Starting in 2023. A meta account, not Facebook account will be required.