ribuck

LovePrevails, that technique is called "picture in picture". An internet search on that phrase will get you plenty of good hits. How easy it is depends on what video software you are using. For example, iMovie on the Mac can do picture-in-picture, but only with one miniature picture at a time. There are workarounds to do multiple picture-in-picture on iMovie, but by using a professional video editor such as Final Cut Pro it's easy to paste multiple picture-in-picture windows into a video.

A web search for"How I became free in an unfree world" pdfwon't disappoint.

If that's your thing, liberty.me is launching next month.

There's no such thing as "politicized science", which is really just politics. We do science a dis-service by using that term, which implies that it's still science when it has been politicized.

"So what do you do, and why?" 1. You keep the social worker out of the picture, because there's a good chance she will mess things up further. 2. Any person who is able and willing to, may offer a safe refuge to John. It's up to John whether he takes up any offers. 3. Mary's obligations are to her children, including reparations to John. She is not obligated to look after Brandy. If necessary, Eric can switch his job to driving local trucks so that he can be home often enough to care for Brandy. Or, if he earns lots more by driving long distance, he can pay for additional help for Brandy. If would be tragic if the social worker (or anyone else) suggested turning a blind eye to John's suffering so that Mary could keep looking after Brandy. If her "ethics" are flexible enough to accommodate that, then they're not ethics.

Gotta laugh when employers ask for "X years of experience", when X is greater than the number of years the technology has existed. It happened when Java was booming, and I predict it won't be long until we see ads for Bitcoin developers with 10 years experience.

As a courtesy to your passenger, you could ask them if they're OK with you working around the cause of the delay.

The blockchain itself is not encrypted, and doesn't need to be. Anyone can see the transactions on it. However, you need to supply a cryptographic signature to spend an output of an earlier transaction that is recorded in the block chain.

The ads are already there, for Bitcoin, for his books, for peaceful parenting, etc.

You can say to these people that the state, if it provides a better service, needn't fear businesses competing with it and therefore doesn't need a legislated monopoly.

I don't think it's possible at this time.

I only got crushes on girls who I thought had great looks and great personality. It turned out that I was wrong about a couple of them, who were batshit crazy, but at the time I didn't see that. Looking back, there were girls with wonderful personalities but below-average looks who would have willingly dated me, but I was not attracted to them at the time. My loss, for sure.

What an interesting topic! My own experience is similar to yours in some ways but not others. In my teens and early twenties I developed long-term crushes, which sometimes lasted for years. I could not let go of the idea that I wanted to get together with that person (even though I usually got friendzoned before long). These were women who attained my highest ideals, and I think I clung onto the crushes because I had high self-esteem and would not settle for less than these unattainable people. But the "perfect" is the enemy of the "good", so I spent these years without a girlfriend. Eventually I reached 30 and realised that I needed to lower my standards. Ironically, it didn't take long after that before I met (and eventually married) the girl of my dreams. Sorry, but I don't have any worthwhile comments to offer other than describing my own experience. The only observation I made to myself afterwards was that I think the crushes would have faded quickly if I'd understood the real nature of friendzoning.

I listened to Stefan's review of "Black Swan" before I saw the movie. I felt that helped me to get a lot more from watching it, especially as the plot is a bit subtle and complicated in parts. Unfortunately, I can't locate Stefan's review now. My take was that the mother was the abuser. As a subconscious defense, the daughter had "switched off" her emotions to block the pain. As a result, the only way she could experience any type of emotion was through self-harm that was strong enough to "pierce through" her emotional barrier. I thoroughly recommend "Black Swan". It's well worth making sure you have no distractions, and totally immerse yourself in it. For me, "A Clockwork Orange" was the first.

For slaves, the vote is between "I endorse continued slavery, and prefer condition A" and "I endorse continued slavery, and prefer condition B". In a non-binding referendum such as this one, it's just an opinion poll: "I prefer outcome A" or "I prefer outcome B". It may not be very useful for you to express your opinion in the upcoming referendum, but it's morally harmless. If secession becomes more common, eventually society may come to accept individual secession too.

st434u, You wrote: If you are comparing various different investment propositions, it's just as good to adjust all of them [for inflation] as to adjust none of them. Not really. If the raw figures tell you that gold increased by a factor of 10 and stocks increased by a factor of 100, you might assume that gold would enable you to increase your wealth. But if there was inflation of ten times, the inflation-adjusted figures would show that gold kept the same value and stocks increased by a factor of 10, so you would know that gold had maintained its purchasing power but didn't increase it. Therefore, only by looking at the inflation-adjusted figures would you realise that gold would not enable you to increase your wealth. You asked about geometric mean. Here's why it using the geometric mean is the only meaningful way to calculate long-term growth. Suppose the stockmarket goes up 20% one year, and the next year it goes down 20%. You might be tempted to use the arithmetic mean and say that the average growth was zero, i.e. (1.2+0.8)/2 = 1.0. However, that gives an over-optimistic sense of market performance. To see why this is so, suppose that you invested $100. The first year, the market goes up 20%, so you end up with $120. The next year, the market goes down by 20%, so you end up with $96 (i.e. 80% of $120). Therefore, if you have growth of 20% followed by shrinkage of 20%, the average annual growth is not 0% but minus 2% per year! The geometric mean takes care of this, because the formula is sqrt(1.2*0.8) which is approximately 0.98, i.e minus 2% per year. You wrote: Also I would again like to know how this "stock market as a whole" thing is calculated. This needs a chapter of a book, not a forum post. But there are widely-accepted stockmarket indexes with well-defined and statistically-sound methodologies. When statistics cover decades, they sometimes need to use different indexes for different parts of their coverage. It's a compromise, but it's the best that can be done. If you're interested in seeing which investments were sound and productive in the long term, the annual Credit Suisse report on historical investment returns is rigorous, informative, and quite readable. Naturally all of the figures are inflation-adjusted and use geometric means: https://www.credit-suisse.com/investment_banking/doc/cs_global_investment_returns_yearbook.pdf You wrote: [dollar collapse is] not just likely, it's a certainty In the event of dollar collapse, gold is useful, though in my opinion not useful enough to be worth losing decades of profit that stocks would yield. It's likely (though not guaranteed) that profitable companies would still pay dividends to holders of their stock, even in the event of a dollar collapse. You wrote: Over the past 14 years gold and silver have both gained about 11% per year in USD and GBP Sure. Gold and silver tend to do well in times of turmoil. But over the longer term, they approximately keep up with inflation and nothing more. So do you want a hedge against financial turmoil, or an investment that will increase your wealth and from which you can draw an ongoing passive income. LibertyDefender wrote: whenever the investment is a physical thing (eg: precious metals), posess it yourself whenever possible... I absolutely agree. Holding "paper" gold works fine when things are running smoothly, but in the event of a collapse the gold won't be there for you. I'm tied up with work and won't be able to participate further in this thread, but I strongly recommend that any investor reads the Credit Suisse historical report that I linked above, and also other similar publications.

This issue is clearly eating away at you. I can't see what you have to lose by apologising for something that you regret from the past. It will set your mind at ease, and might help to maintain a great relationship between the two of you. If you don't apologise, your doubt will keep nagging away at you. I recently apologised to someone for something that I did when I was a teenager, decades ago. Apologising didn't lead to anything positive (just a "thank you" and an exchange of a couple of emails), but it sure felt good to have cleared out a piece of unresolved clutter from my brain.

Yes that's right. When looking at long-term investments, one needs to adjust all the statistics for inflation. It's also important to use geometric mean rather than arithmetic mean for all growth statistics. Otherwise, people mis-allocate their investments as a result, and don't realise until years or even decades later, by which time it may be too late to recover. As for the statistics, they do include all the losses from the companies that went broke along the line. Profits from the companies that did well are more than enough to make up for losses from those that failed. In the UK, the long-term statistics for the stockmarket as a whole, including dividends re-invested, show a growth of 5.1% per year above inflation. If one can keep total fees below 1% per year (which should be possible provided one is aware of them), and if you use tax-efficient investment wrappers such as ISAs, it should be possible to get a fairly safe long-term return of 4% above inflation. This means, if one wants to retire with a perpetual inflation-adjusted income of £10,000 per year, one would need a stock portfolio valued at £250,000. Add a small pension and one can survive comfortably. Anything above that will let someone in the UK live well rather than just "survive".

From the inflation-adjusted statistics in Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics": The bottom line is that a productive investment such as stocks will, over a long enough term, vastly out-perform non-productive value-holding assets such as precious metals

In the long run, precious metals keep up with inflation but are not a productive (wealth-generating) investment. In the long run, stocks exceed inflation by several percent per year. Compound that over 30 years and you'll be way ahead with the money in the 401K, invested in a low-charge tracker fund. Mr Money Mustache is a very readable blog that explores these issues.

I'm astonished at what I'm reading in this thread. Would a mainstream haircut have been a positive for Bob Dylan when he promoted controversial ideas? Bob Marley? Che Guevara? Leo Tolstoy? Albert Einstein? Leonardo da Vinci?

Which leaves the other 1%. Seventy million people ought to be enough for anyone!

What an unusual "first post". Welcome to the forum! It's great that you are taking such a practical approach to self-education, and you seem to have achieved a lot already (even if you are doing it the hard way by programming with Excel). I do, however, disagree with one of your statements: Perhaps surprisingly, one-off encryption systems have been shown to be far less secure. Cryptography is hard, and there were many unintuitive errors discovered and corrected along the way to today's "best practises" cryptography. It's actually harder to keep an algorithm secret than it is to keep a private key secret. The private key can be stored on a USB stick in a locked safe until needed for decryption, but the algorithm needs to be installed on the computers that are decrypting OR encrypting the data - and the developers will have a copy too (and probably several copies in their version control system and in the backups of that version control system). Modern encryption algorithms have had hundreds of thousands of hours of scrutiny, which have exposed many errors that were subsequently fixed. Those classes of errors are widely known, and it's fairly easy to use them against new un-reviewed algorithms. Many of the attacks are not obvious to a programmer. For example, a mathematician can work out that certain operations weaken the randomness of the supposedly-random "seeds" which provide some of the security. For example, an attacker can carefully measure the CPU time needed to perform certain operations on encrypted data, to discover certain properties of the data that make it much easier to crack. By all means create your own encryption algorithms for the intellectual satisfaction, but please don't imagine that they would be secure in the "real world".

You are joking surely? How could you expect someone speak about authenticity if they felt their hair needed to conform to societal expectations? LovePrevails, your delivery is pretty good; it's probably nearly optimum for a captive audience such as at a lecture. But for a discretionary audience such as YouTubers, you will do better by telling a story. Start the video by telling people where you're starting from and where you're going, then give them a "hook" (e.g. "...but first, we need to discover how our unconscious creates imaginary obstacles"), then take the audience on a journey of discovery. Increase engagement by including some emotional elements (e.g. surprise, a necessary U-turn, an "aha" moment, and a satisfying resolution). Your titles are already well-written, but it's worth summarising the video in its description. Many people click onto a video and won't watch the whole video unless the description promises something they would find worthwhile. Don't forget to cross-promote one or two of your other videos in your description text and in the video itself. In your video description, your website link is not hyperlinked so people won't go there unless they can be bothered to copy-and-paste. And if they do, they will find that the link is not a functioning website (it seems to be a domain holding page). Having said that, I think the main limiting factor is simply that hardly anyone knows your videos exist. I'm no expert on marketing, but a very simple way to take the first step is to add some text to your blog posts. Simply embedding the video isn't going to get it found on the search engines. So take the time to write some text to go with the embedded video. You could talk about the content of the video itself, or you could talk tangentially (e.g. you could talk about why you made that video, and what benefits you hope its viewers will gain from watching it).

Dsayers, I agree with you about disliking the word "misbehave". I try to think of everything children do as "behavior", whether they're doing something I like or something I don't like. Good point about not letting children see certain things. Children are wired to imitate. If you don't want children to imitate something, don't show it to them.