Lowe D

The how-to article is on a popular website, whereas your YouTube page is not a popular website. To compare the page views you need to normalize somehow. The illustrations are interesting. I wonder where they came from, and what the illustrator was thinking, when he made them.

The guy did his doctorate at Michigan. I wonder if he came out of the same lab where Elizabeth Gershoff worked. She published that big meta-analysis of hitting studies, several years ago. EDIT: Oh, he mentions her in the article. I guess that lends credence to the theory.

I looked at the quiz. It resembled an MBTI, but with more descriptive words, which suggests the quiz hasn't been vetted like an MBTI. Genuine educational and psychological testing is a scientific discipline, which controls for every phrase. Usually wording is minimal. I only read through the first 5 or 6 questions, and found I couldn't answer any of them. In the pair, each answer was valid for my life at different times. Maybe quizzes like this only pigeonhole you into someone you may be, some of the time, but not all. I can't claim to understand other people much, though, so take my words with a grain of salt.

It's not going to smile at me, though.

Idk what you should do. I have had virtually zero reward from these conversations. I think the threshold intelligence required is too high. I think it would be smart of you not to share your ideas with your professors, since you're a student. Professors give better marks to students they like, and they will stop liking you in a hurry if you discuss these topics.

Say it ain't so!

Yeah, like muscles. No one has ever proved men have bigger muscles, so who knows! Just another example of the patriarchy at work.

This movie came out when I was a teenager, and I saw it then. I watched it again, two or three years ago. It's difficult to remember my original impression clearly. Weirdly, I remember something my father said about it at the time. He said the file size of a movie like that would be large, implying the blocky, cartoonish images wouldn't compress well, I suppose. I am unsure that is true. Idk whether spatial or temporal redundancy is higher in cartoon or natural video. I was disappointed at the time, that he didn't have anything more to say about it than that. I do remember I found it entertaining, as a teen, and also later as an adult. Dreams often involve exchanges reflecting one's waking life, or being drawn from it directly. I think this is what the movie is intended to be: a series of encounters reflecting the character's life, or the people and ideas in it. The conversations' content was not as interesting as their emotional import, and the experience of wandering from one strange conversation to another, with little or nothing shown between, lost in a world full of eerie music. I think the movie is absurdist, or existentialist, like the novel Nausea, or the film Breathless. The main message is a resignation to the impenetrable mystery and seeming pointlessness of life. The confusion reinforces this, and is part of the genre. The absurdist playwright Ionesco made a play which consists of everyone being turned into a rhinoceros. The ending is hard to interpret, but I tend to view it as positive. The character appears to die in the dream, or to surrender himself to death. In a dream, death is a relief. A release from the confusion and the danger of the dream world. Dreams can have monsters in them, and I think that's part of the idea. The intellectuals he talks to are pretty monstrous, and ideas really do have a danger to them. Maybe not the ideas exactly, but whatever it is that's causing them. What does it mean about someone, that he spends time thinking about how he has no free will? Or thinking on the large difference in intelligence between a philosopher and an average person? Or trying randomly to reach out to strangers, to avoid being an automaton?

The question is whether price inflation, on goods priced in dollars, is going to eat away at the bonds' nominal yields to the point that the real yields are zero or negative. The answer is maybe. This depends more on what the private sector does than the gov't. Are banks levering up, making loans? Then there's inflation. If not, not so much. Like right now, not much inflation. Interestingly, one way you can tell this is happening is that the price of gold increases. Gold is used as a substitute store of value when real rates are zero or negative. Negative real rates is the only thing with which gold price correlates. Real rates are positive now, due to low inflation, and gold has been declining since the ast quarter of 2011.

Call Discover and ask them to raise your limit to $2500. They will review your credit, make a decision, and then email or call you. If they can't offer you the limit you want, then they'll probably still offer you a lower one.

The Chinese national bank, or whatever it is called, buys US Treasury bonds for the same reason any bank does. It's a way to lock in a nominal yield with little or no credit risk, and its interest is paid in the most held currency in the world. When part of a broader portfolio, it's a good investment. No political intrigue or trade-surplus-related reasoning needed.

Sounds like you're having a hard time. I'm sorry to hear that. I wouldn't listen to your friend's advice. She sounds like a sad old lady. As for me, I can't give you advice because I have no clue what you should do. Is that your son in your avatar? Looks like a cute kid. Is he riding a horse? I definitely never did that, at that age. I like that you said you let your son roam up and down the aisles of the grocery store, and indulge his every need. Kids are meant to be spoiled. I think all this work and anxiety is going to pay off. Did you know that in Latin, anxiety and care are the same word? I bet that if you keep trying like this, your son is going to love you like crazy when he's a man with his own life.

I have to apologize, because I'm projecting my own confusion and desires on to other posters. The FFR has historically been set via open market operations, on short-term Treasury debt, with long term debt like mortgages being affected by arbitrage against the FFR (like Wesley describes). This has been the most important Fed tool in setting rates, since the 1980s. It's more recently that the Fed has used Treasury purchases to encourage lending, and to prop up equity, w/o regard to the FFR. They can now set the FFR explicitly, by setting the interest they pay on reserves (since 2008).

You will of course present these ideas at your nearest zoo, in case any of its residents might be human.

The interest the Fed charges banks on loaned reserves is not large. It's called the Federal Discount Rate, and it is 0.75% now. I don't know what the maturity on these loans typically is, but I am sure it is very short. H/e the Fed won't loan money to banks unless they have exhausted their reserves but can show there are still credit-worthy borrowers. So generally when a bank is borrowing money through the Fed it borrows from other banks, which also store reserves with the Fed. This is done at the Federal Funds Rate (FFR), which is 0.25% now. The yield on treasurys is more important than these rates, in determining the rates on mortgages, commercial loans, etc. This is because banks do not keep large cash reserves with the Fed or elswhere, if they can help it. As of now the rate on the 10-year Treasury is 2.66%, which is way better than loaning money to other banks at 0.25% (bleh). So the Fed mostly controls yields through its purchase and sale of US Treasury bonds, also known as its open market operations. This is not to say that the FFR and reserve requirement aren't important, but not as important. Both have been close to zero, or zero, for a while now. So, the statement is true to a degree, but mostly the Fed spends its time worrying about Treasury yields. That is how you ought to explain it, because it is closer to the truth, even if the reader are less likely to understand it. If you're lucky you might even inadvertantly discourage yourself from trying, but instead spend more time learning about it yourself. Their lack of knowledge will only hurt them. And yours, well, you get it.

Because it is a currency issuer, the US Treasury has impeccable credit. To pay back the money it has borrowed, it has only to issue more bonds, creating more currency in the process. This means there is no default risk. Nor is there any call risk: calling a bond is when the issuer recalls the bond and reissues it at a different (i.e. lower) rate. Think re-financing with a mortgage. While municipal debt, corporate debt, mortages, and auto-loans have these serious risks, the only risk on Treasury bonds is that inflation runs higher, reducing real returns. If Treasury debt is virtually risk-free, why would anyone ever buy the alternatives? Well, they aren't giving you that mortage unless they can charge higher interest than they could with a Treasury bond of similar maturity. Higher the risk means higher return. This is why rates are generally higher on bonds of longer maturity, and why rates are universally higher on alternatives to Treasurys. Imagine the Federal Reserve increases its purchases ofTreasury bonds on the secondary market. This means the price of those bonds increases. The Treasury notices this, so when they open their next auction, they know they can offer somewhat lower yields, and get the same price they had been getting only recently on the higher yields. In this way yields move inversely to the price: lower in this case. Now imagine you are a banker and this happens. No more easy loans to Uncle Sam. Which means its time to make some more risky business loans, consumer loans, and student loans, and in so doing lower the rates on all these loans. Whatever you have to do to get your shareholders a profit, while maintaining an acceptable risk profile. But what if rates are held down for too long? What happens to your risk profile then? Short version: All bond yields, to any debtor and for whatever purpose, move the same way as Treasury yields. It's something you can observe in the financial news. When Treasury yields decrease, so do mortage rates. The positive difference between mortage and Treasury yields is a just a premium on the greater risk of the former. Someone who doesn't understand this has no business being a socialist, or having opinions on politics or economics. Which is exactly why they don't. Their opinions are on the ghosts and goblins they have projected into the world, including the goblin they are projecting onto you.

Don't have kids unless you can afford private school, or have the time and ability to homeschool?

The writer implicitly accuses me of having only impartially earned my property/status, and also of being rude, stupid, and a benighted savage and oppressor. He is hurling insults at any male reader, left and right. The article is one thinly veiled barb after another. He has no earthly idea how I treat women, nor how much I have worked for what I have. Frankly he should shut up about people he doesn't know.

Stefan, I have been doing Crossfit a few months, and have had fun with it. Fitness has been an important part of my life for a few years now, and I was looking for something more exciting than conventional weightlifting and cardio exercises. Recently I saw a Reason interview with Greg Glassman, in which he described himself as rabidly libertarian. Glassman is the founder of Crossfit, and he seems like a cool guy. Admittedly the Reason video doesn't say much about his principles. However I think this lecture, at the Illinois Policy Institute, does. He shows a profound understanding of the free market, which goes a long way to explaining how Crossfit exploded in the last five years. Getting an interview with him can't be easy, given what his schedule must be like. I don't see any contact information for him online, so one might have to ask the Reason reporters how they got in touch with him. I considered doing this, but it's better I know you are interested, before making inquiries. Also it might be something you prefer to do yourself. Thanks, Lowe

What an incredibly stupid study. Oh, heaven's no, hunter gatherers don't make war! They just kill each other. That's totally different, because I say so.

They are around. They're the ones who're having their lives ruined.

Are consensual beatings a crime? I don't think so. H/e it is a crime to hurt a boy to the extent that he would do this to someone else, later in life.

That's pretty creepy.

Since males have a stronger sex drive, and also usually suffer more physical abuse than females, it makes sense that they would more often fetishize violence. As for the cause predating the effect by five to ten years, that isn't always the case. Sexual feelings sometimes show up in children, before puberty, especially when it's this kind of feeling. That's what happened for me. I don't know others' histories, and won't ever, so I won't generalize. I see in my own life, the sexualization of violence happened quickly and early, and was not an accident. It was an adaptation to the creepy, physically invasive, demeaning, and sexualized violence of my family. It was a healthy response to an unhealthy situation.

You might tell them to consider calling child services.