If you don't like other tourists, don't travel to tourist destinations. It's that simple. You don't travel to France and get annoyed that there are french people, well guess what, tourist destinations have tourists, that's a given, and it's a given everywhere, and it has nothing to do with instagram, Facebook or "this generation" it's just basic dumb fact.

Lets assume just for the sake of argument that Magnus has insider information from chess.com making him 98% certain that Niemann is cheating.

Why would he hand him a game that's going to be watched worldwide, where Magnus has nothing to win. Since if he wins we really still don't know anything one way or the other. But he also has everything to lose. If Hans is cheating and manages to pull off something again, then Magnus is cripeling his own reputation.

Magnus seems to be doing the right thing here, which is voicing his concerns, refusing to play him, and asking Niemann for permission to speak on the matter fully. Niemann is doing what you'd expect of a cheater, which is to stay quiet, dismiss the discussions, having difficulty explaining his plays, and pretty much just holding back from letting chess.com or Magnus divulge what information they have from the inside of his bans.

I think the unspoken truth but also the thing both chess.com and Magnus are hinting at is that Niemann has cheated a lot more than he lets on, perhaps his entire stream was built on cheating, who knows. But chess.com can't just start sharing information like that, and they are walking a fine line just with their public statement where they affirmatively assert that Niemann is underplaying the reality of his cheating. Magnus probably has insider information from chess.com but is bound by NDA and this is also why he's now challenging Niemann to give him permission to speak on the matter.

(-1)^(2x) = ncos(x) + i nsin(x)

And yes, -1 is a very weird number. If you take it to the power of something divisible by 2 you get itself raised to zero. What's up with this spooky periodicity? Also if you have x=1/4, then we get weird numbers like sqrt(-1) what on earth is that all about? No way that will fly, no way. No I'll take my 2.718^((-1)^(1/2)) and multiply through with 6.28318 that way I don't have to bother understanding what I'm doing I can sleep comfortable at night knowing that someone else has done all the thinking that needs to be done on the matter, and that turns or rotations are a blasphemous concept that breaks the very concept of math through scaling of an axis. You'd think math was strong enough to withstand such a minor change, but the textbooks do not mention it thus it must not be contemplated!

That's not really an accurate comparison. The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.

The inspection time is not training, it's literally the time spent solving the cube.

I don't have any evidence to back up the claim that they are faking views, but I know for a fact that the hundreds of followers I have gained making almost no content are not real. And it seems extremely suspicious that they've engineered their whole "creator fund" around trying to not pay creators based just on views/likes and subs, if they where real that would be the most accurate measure to target. But feels like they've decided to completely ignore them and to "sort" creators, likely because they know there's some creators with majorly fake followers that they don't want to pay, but still want to keep on the platform so they keep their fake engagement metrics high, and then there's the "real" popular names that they know they need to pay, but still underpay compared to other platforms. But creators still stick to tiktok because "they have a much larger following". It smells.

Reconsider what your stating here. If I have 10$, and I can therefore lend out 100$, but I only have requests to borrow 50$, then I have "too much cash". If I however had requests to borrow 200$, the I would need to find another 10$, for instance by promising someone a higher interest rate on their accounts. The fact that banks do fractional reserve does in no way guarantee that they do not end up having more cash on hand than they need to cover the demand for loans.

What exactly do you feel is the "which color should the shed be" point of this discussion?

Naturally this makes the layout of Ikea important, because if you never go through the lighting department, you're not going to remember that you'd actually been wanting a desklamp and pick one out. But this isn't some sort of clever psychological hack thats tricking you into buying a lamp you don't need.

Why do you want to know? I know a doctor in India who can help arrange that if you need this kind of service. He's not cheap though. /s

But what you can't do is try to use IOU printing to guard against the values of your IOU's falling, it just doesn't make sense when Timmy comes by and says "I want my $10k, here's the IOUs" that you say "Ok, wait a second, I have like $20k worth of IOU's I could give you instead, would that make you happy?". Because you aren't proping up the value of the IOU's, your just devaluing them faster.

The absolute center of the problem here seems to be that Upwork has engineered a system where Robin is not in any way involved with this case. This is a case of a credit card owner creating a chargeback request against a developer. The fact that the developer can prove that the payments where given for delivered work doesn't matter to Upwork, because when they took that proof to the bank of the credit card owner and said "See there is proof services where provided for the payments" the owner said "I did not request that work".

Back in reality, this is absolutely a problem for Upwork, and a problem that really should be at the very core of their business. If people can successfully chargeback any amount of money at any time scale because they payed with a creditcard they don't own, every single start-up should start making borrowing circles of credit cards for their first 10 years of development so they can claw it all back if they go bust and need to pivot. The very core of upworks business is to establish a truth worthy process for payment for services, and in this case where the process fails they are simply going "Oh, to bad for you, now go do the dishes until you've payed for the bill of the dinner dashers who just sprinted out after legally agreeing to pay your dinner as payment for 2 years work".