Jacobhtml's Categories

Jacobhtml's Authors

Latest Saves

OK, I don’t think there is much to jump on about the Amsterdam thing.


But I also think that that Andrew Bailey misses the


During the referendum the argument was made that because the EU regulatory regime was agreed with the UK that passporting would be granted.


And we were told it was crucial by Andrea Leadsom’s campaign team after the referendum.


There is a reason why financial services tend to be in separate chapters of trade deals.

They are not the average service.
This was tweeted 21 hours ago.

#MedEd is showing it’s true colors yet again, with the abrupt transition in leadership in which the program director, Dr. Dennar was forcibly resigned from her position as PD without justifiable cause but ironically after she filed a lawsuit 👇🏾


I’m frankly tired. But again I speak up. This is completely unacceptable. #DNRTulane

CW: //violence

Dr. Dennar faced misogynoir on top of interpersonal and systemic violence. I’m disgusted at the levels to this #DNRTulane


As someone who interviewed at this program, I was drawn by Tulane’s service to minority populations in a place hit by one of the worst natural disasters this country has seen. I was personally moved by my interview day. #DNRTulane

But this news is antithetical to everything I stand for and what I previously believed Tulane to stand for. Yet another Black woman has been forced out of a leadership position due to discriminatory practices. Legal intervention was required. #DNRTulane
I told you they’d bring this up


I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see


Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.


There are 3 important moments in that transcript.

1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.


2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “

Okay!

Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
This is as good an opportunity as any to launch into my theory of perversion. A perversion is an unnatural sexual desire, and by that I mean it is a sexual desire unhinged from external realities - from other actual people - and trapped in an inner self-referential loop.


Let's take the trad perspective for a second and assume same-sex romantic relationships are morally wrong because they do not fulfill the purpose of sex, procreation. Even so, even in those same sex bonds, there is a natural and good thing being sought after, even if incorrectly.

Even if the primary purpose of sex, from the trad perspective, is not being fulfilled, other natural aspects of the sexual act are: physical solace and the comfort of another person's embrace, and the tenderness and kindness lovers express to each other through sex.

So that even if one assumes gay sex is unnatural, it is only so because it seeks through unnatural means to live out a perfectly natural goal: love, mutual enjoyment of the lovers, the generosity and tears of the bedroom.

True perversion is desire turned inward, locked in itself

Perversion is sexual desire with NO connection to nature, because it is not externally attracted to other people, but inwardly fixed on one's own particular state of mind. It may take on characteristics of natural sexual desire, but only incidentally.
Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.


Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)

Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.

Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte


“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”

So close.
1/18 After 3 months, @saffronfinance_ is no longer new on the scene. Now that the kid has climbed the ranks, it's time to see if he can hang with the big boys.

Below are some updated thoughts on potential integrations, improvements, and innovations for Saffron moving forward. ⬇️


2/18 First, if you haven't seen @Privatechad_'s alpha-leaking introductory thread, you should check it out.

I agree that @AlphaFinanceLab and @CreamdotFinance, specifically the Iron Bank, would be ideal targets for SFI risk tranches.


3/18 Speaking more broadly, Saffron is primarily integrated with @compoundfinance, which has served as a MVP of sorts.

The thing is, Compound is one of the safest (but also lowest yield) protocols in DeFi, so it's not surprising that there isn't much demand for the sen. tranche.


4/18 Expanding beyond Compound to higher-risk/higher-return protocols has always been key.

These protocols are the bread-and-butter target market for Saffron, and I would expect to see a surge in demand for senior tranche staking in these


5/18 Additionally, @DeFiGod1 convinced me that Senior Tranche pools would be more appealing if they offered fixed yield.

Essentially, Saffron would augment the product offerings of @Barn_Bridge by also offering senior stakers insurance in the form of junior tranche collateral.
OK, I may be guilty of a DoS attack attempt on mathematicians' brains here, so lest anyone waste too much precious brain time decoding this deliberately cryptic statement, let me do it for you. •1/15


First, as some asked, it is to be parenthesized as: “∀x.∀y.((∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (((∀t.((t∈x) ⇒ ((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y))))) ⇒ (z∈y)))) ⇒ (∀z.((z∈x) ⇒ (z∈y))))” (the convention is that ‘⇒’ is right-associative: “P⇒Q⇒R” means “P⇒(Q⇒R)”), but this doesn't clarify much. •2/15

Maybe we can make it a tad less abstruse by using guarded quantifiers (“∀u∈x.(…)” stands for “∀u.((u∈x)⇒(…))”): it is then “∀x.∀y.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ (t∈y)))) ⇒ (z∈y))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.(z∈y)))”. •3/15

Maybe a tad clearer again by writing “P(u)” for “u∈y” and leaving out the quantifier on y, viꝫ: “∀x.((∀z∈x.(((∀t∈x.((t∈z) ⇒ P(t)))) ⇒ P(z))) ⇒ (∀z∈x.P(z)))” [✯]. Now it appears as an induction principle: namely, … •4/15

… “in order to prove P(z) for all z∈x, we can assume, when proving P(z), that P(t) is already known for all t∈z∩x” (n.b.: “(∀z.(Q(z)⇒P(z)))⇒(∀z.P(z))” can be read “in order to prove P(z) for all z, we can assume Q(z) known when proving P(z)”). •5/15