Oh wow, flashback. I remember feeding four of us off a single bowl at the local Mongolian BBQ place. Other customers were literally hooting and cheering while I eased my tower to the grill. Apparently, they imposed a policy after that: one bowl means no higher than the rim. I was so proud.

For a sufficiently defined “goingToCrashIntoEachOther” and “don’t”, isn’t that basically how it works?

With a little modification

I’m consistently in the middle of many, many books. I use dollar bills so I get a reward for actually finishing.

Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind when my current case fails

9 Fold also. The case I have had the same basic design as the Poetic Spartan, and the hinge feels like it’s going to break sooner or later

Phone case manufacturers just now figuring out good design for “Traditional” foldy devices

Source? I have a folding phone and every case I’ve seen or used is super frustrating

There is significant overlap between systems administrators and furries.

I know the definitions of both. Your statement was in conflict with those definitions, which is why I asked you to define them, to determine why you would make the statement you did.

Could you define Capitalism and Socialism for the class?

What I read is his friends identified him as economically leftist, but took issue with identity politics

Still, there’s the friction of checks and balances. It’s certainly not perfect, far from it, but the alternative is still worse.

The state is nothing but a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Which, ideally, is pretty much how it has to work. The state is, ideally, composed of elected representatives and their appointees. The alternative to violence monopolized by elected representatives is violence distributed to private interests. State monopoly of legitimate violence is not great and I agree with the problems inherent to that, but realistically the alternative seems worse. I’m racking my brain for another system, but I can’t think of anything that doesn’t devolve to oligarch-led private armies oppressing people.

I did try to be specific: on that day.

Goodness, when was that?

To the people of New York:

We have a responsibility as citizens to respect our civic duty to justice. You may be selected for a jury to try a suspect for this murder. It may be the one responsible, it may be a scapegoat. In either case, after the judicial proceedings, you will be asked to assent to a verdict. On that day, you will be required to ensure justice is served. On that day, remember just two words: jury nullification.

Don’t do that, it’s not effective feedback. Ask for a manager, explain to them that you’re dropping your shit where you stand and going to the grocery store down the street, and why. Should be a brief conversation, and if multiple people do that then it’s more likely to trickle up to corporate.

Firstly, insurance isn’t a derivative, so it’s not really relevant here.

Secondly, paying insurance is still a form of financial risk. If you pay insurance for the entire time you own a home, but never file a claim, then that’s basically just money wasted. You’re trading material risk to your home for financial risk.

And it’s also basically a gamble. You’re betting that the total you pay in premiums will be less than whatever the insurance company will pay you. The insurance company is betting that it’ll be higher.

I didn’t know enough about FX swaps to comment personally, but Investopedia says this:

The top risk with foreign currency swaps is currency risk. Currency risk arises from fluctuations in exchange rates between two currencies involved in the swap. When companies or financial institutions enter into a swap, they agree to exchange cash flows in different currencies at future dates. If/when the exchange rate moves, one party may end up paying significantly more in its domestic currency than anticipated. For example, if a company swaps U.S. dollars for euros and the euro strengthens, the company will need to pay more in dollars to meet its euro obligations.

Another key risk is interest rate risk. Foreign currency swaps often involve exchanging fixed or floating interest payments on the notional amounts of the two currencies. If interest rates in one country rise unexpectedly, the party receiving fixed interest payments in that currency may miss out on higher interest income. If interest rates decline, the party paying floating rates could face higher-than-expected costs.

Counterparty risk is another risk. In any swap agreement, the parties involved rely on each other to fulfill their obligations. If one party defaults, the other party may face financial losses. To mitigate this risk, companies often perform thorough due diligence on their counterparties or utilize clearinghouses for swap agreements. As is the case with most financial instruments, this risk cannot be eliminated.

Last, the liquidity risk associated with foreign currency swaps is another factor to consider. These swaps typically have long maturities, and the liquidity of certain currencies can fluctuate over time. If market conditions change and a party wants to exit the swap early, they may find it difficult to find a willing counterparty, especially if they wish to trade or exchange out of their position.

Those mortgages were priced incorrectly because the derivatives market inflated their value. There were other factors that contributed certainly. The credit rating agencies certainly played a critical role, but they were incentivized to inflate their rating because of the MBS market.

The regulation of these markets was also to blame, and that’s a whole other can of beans, but again this was due mostly to the revolving door between the regulatory agencies and the investment funds that profit from lax regulation of the derivatives market.