> load some bitcoin in and short with 100x leverage

Sounds like a great way to have a crooked exchange make you insolvent very quickly. Be very careful using any kind of leverage.

If you don’t trust your exchange not to commit that kind of fraud, then you shouldn’t trade on it at all, as there are many ways they could defraud you even if you trade at 1x. There are plenty of. reasons why I wouldn’t recommend trading at 100x, but “the exchange might commit fraud” isn’t at the top.

Still, in the described scenario, where you use a scam and market manipulation, 100x seems like a great tool.

Are any of those exchanges based out of the USA? And do any of them not allow USA based customers? My concern is if I made a great trade at 100x and then go to transfer bitcoin and they freeze my account saying I need to provide proof of residency or some BS.

Most do not allow US customers, but even BitMEX gives you a few days to withdraw your funds after freezing your account if found the be in the US (I’ve been told by people who had their accounts frozen). Some have KYC, sure, but in my experience, many do not and let you withdraw without issue. A lot of people (stupidly, IMHO, but that’s besides the point) trade 100x, its part of many of these exchanges selling points.

But if you were pulling the twitter scam, as I described, you would be risking a few $K on this trade in the hopes for making a million or two, while still being able to do the scam they did. Sure, there are risks (such as being able to withdraw at all after using the twitter hack to manipulate the market), but chances are there are plenty of others who will have shorted too so you’d be part of the noise and wait a week before withdrawing. Its not a perfect plan, but its straightforward with the potential to multiply the scammed money.

> He will spend a lot of time either angry at the situation, or spending that time also trying to get a tax break.

It is a good financial decision to spend up to "$1M * <odds of success>" to get that tax break, or another better one. (especially if the ~$500K spent on retainered-lawyers sets you up to pay less due to future tax hikes.) Economics gets weird when any of the numbers get really big, or really small.

I don't like this example though, as it doesn't detail why the tax break was so specific. Did 4/5 of them have no taxable income that year? Do all of these billionaires live in a despotic-shithole where the rule of law doesn't apply equally to everyone? (to be fair, most billionaires do. /s)

It's a good financial decision for a business that is supposed to maximise profit for shareholders or employees or something.

But this example is not about that. First to answer your last question, it's the despotic shithole kind. The point being, the reason is completely arbitrary.

This is about a billionaire who can already buy whatever they want, regardless of said tax break. It won't make them directly happier because it doesn't allow them to buy anything they couldn't otherwise buy.

The point of the example is that given this is the case, we still have a built in biological desire for "fairness" and if this billionaire would realise and observe this desire having no logical basis, they would not fight it. (assume fighting it is not as enjoyable to spend their limited life time as they could be doing something else with the money they already have)

In an analogous situation, five people go to a fancy restaurant and for some reason four of them get 10 plates of food, and one gets 9 plates of food. Assume the restaurant is so generous one person can't possibly eat more than 2 plates anyway.

Why is it easier to imagine simply not making a big deal out of it and enjoying your meal(s), in this situation?

(Especially considering that the meal example is 100x more unfair)

"Only two people can launch a nuke, the president, and the engineer who installed the system."

Is there any API you can go through to get the UUID of the current ABI, all the ones seen by the system, or all of the ones for each windows ABI without network access?

Trivially, you grab the UUIDs from a server somewhere. A smarter trick is to get these UUIDs from the system you're running on.

Where is the entropy going?

This still has all eight bytes, from the generated UUID, and looks like it can be converted back into a UUID.

yes, I will add an inversion, it's a bijection

The space of all uuids is larger than the space of all shakespearean uuids. So by definition you can't biject them. You may be able to on able for your subset of uuids in your project, but there is less entropy when using the latter.

edit: It seems the shakespearean uuids are longer than uuids so I may be conpletely wrong

I skimmed the code and it looks like there’s a hole for every pigeon. Space size appears to be equal.

I thought the original setup where the vice president was whoever got the second most votes was going for that.

I've done that, and gotten banned from a site later for having the company name in my email. (I was unbanned later, after contacting support)

This is insane, I love it.

How long until this is a library on pypi?

As long as this is contained to the metrics-metagame branch of the git repo, I am fine with this.

Get 80k commits in, before lunch.

Food's a fun example, because there's currently too much of it. At least in my part of the world, the price of various foods is moderated by the government buying or selling huge stocks of it.

My bigger concern about that is all of the fossil fuels getting wasted doing the haber-process for food nobody's going to use.