If the sun is always directly down from the surface, doesn't that make it solar midnight from anywhere on the surface?

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22far+left%22+site%3Acnn.co...

$1,111 of Bitcoin in 2010, would net you $1M today in Bitcoin SV alone, even if you gave away your Bitcoin, Bitcoin Gold, and Bitcoin Cash.

Should YT run ads on non-monetized content? It's a fair question, and I can see a justifications either way.

https://www.yrcharisma.com/the-youtube-revenue-split-who-kee...

I think of this as a developer issue. There's good money being the middle man for transactions. Did consumers really care about the Epic/Apple IAP issue? Were there iOS users clamoring to use Epic's payment platform? I never really heard the consumer voice in that discussion. I did hear a lot of developer voices that cared about their right to charge consumers without Apple's 30% transaction cut.

I like your first answer better, even if I agree with it less.

Shorting has unlimited downside, since it may be arbitrarily expensive to buy back the shares/coins that you borrow.

Puts, on the other hand, have a strike price. A contact to be able to sell Bitcoin for $30K is worthless on the expiration date if the market price is $40K. Anybody can sell at a better price than your contract on the open market. The market price going to 0 is the best thing for the owner of a put option. "Stocks can’t drop below 0." is actually a bummer for the put owner. If a stock could go lower, the put owner could sell the asset for even MORE than the market price of the asset.

What hgibbs probably wants to hear is this: The worst case for a put owner is for the put option to expire worthless since the market value of the asset is greater than the strike price when the option expires. The maximum downside is a contract worth $0.

If you want to pay a premium to be able to sell bitcoin at the end of the year for $20K, but the value is still $30K on December 31, your put option is worthless, and that's as bad as it gets.

...UNLESS you're buying puts on margin without a stop-limit.

As a non-essential worker with no risk factors, I felt that my contribution to the pandemic was to stay home and wait until my turn. I did, by the way, wait until the vaccine was generally available before scheduling. Before general availability, most of my friends my age (mid-30s) had been vaccinated by stretching the truth. I felt like the idiot, and had a fair amount of resentment.

I wonder about the surplus doses, though. Did a substantial culture of seeking out unused doses result in outcomes that were net positive from a utilitarian point of view? It's unclear to me how much "line cutting" this resulted in.

Clearly, stretching the truth to get a dose ahead of others is selfish at least. Back in March, I assume that there were plenty of people in need that didn't/couldn't get an appointment that needed a shot more than YCombinator founders. This wasn't stretching the truth though, just exploitation of a loophole and small surpluses of a limited resource.

In the end, I think the morality hinges on your question, koolhaas. To what extent did standby shots interfere with mitigating the health crisis. Is that what dasickis was doing? Was dasickis aware of opportunity cost of taking that shot? Did he even care?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/13/covid-your-bay-area-g...

    @jaffathecake had a problem of truncation
    and posted to Twitter his calculation.
    The gist of his attack
    was min( max( num, min ), max)
    yet refused to add any annotation.