The normal trading volume isn't really the key. Rather, it's how elastic the price is.

Suppose these guys sell 10% of the daily trading volume. How do the traders in the market react? One possibility: Buy at current prices. Another: Speculate that there'll be more sales and the price will drop by a couple of per cent in the coming days/weeks, and delay their buying in order to buy the dip.

I'm sure the Americans have laid plans for how to avoid a major Oops.

> How do the traders in the market react?

Buy. Because the Fed is about to monetize the debt.

Maybe I misunderstand, but that sounds as if you're saying that Treasuries have low risk and middling yield. Is that what you mean? (Half the G20 countries currently have <4% yield on ten-year bonds, the other half more.)

You're close to an important point.

Our current laws are written to make it legal for you to copy the Quran via your brain — some people learn it by rote and can stand up and speak the entire work from one end to the other. This is intended to be legal. Fair use of the Quran.

I went to a concert recently where someone copied every word and (as far as I could hear) every note from a copyrighted work by Bruce Springsteen. Singing and playing. This too is intended to be fair use.

You can learn how to play and sing Springsteen songs verbatim, and you can use his records to learn to sound like him when you sing, and that's intended to be legal.

Since the law doesn't say "but you cannot write a program to do these things, or run such a program once written", why would it be illegal to do the same thing using some code?

The people who want the law to differentiate have a difficult challenge in front of them. As I see it, they need to differentiate between what humans do to learn from what machines do, and that implies really knowing what humans do. And then they need to draw boundaries, making various kinds of computer-assisted human learning either legal or illegal.

Some of them say things like "when an AI draws Calvin and Hobbes in the style of Breughel, it obviously has copied paintings by Breughel" but a court will ask why that's obvious. Is it really obvious that the way it does that drawing necessarily involves copying, when you as a human can do the same thing without copying?

> I went to a concert recently where someone copied every word and (as far as I could hear) every note from a copyrighted work by Bruce Springsteen. Singing and playing. This too is intended to be fair use.

Only the learning part is fair use. Playing an artist's songs in public does not violate the copyright of the original performing artist, but it does violate the songwriters' copyright, and you do need a license to play covers in public.

They're called Performing Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights

It can also violate other laws and rules that are not relevant to copyright. Perhaps I should have digressed into listing that? I chose not to.

Performing rights are part of copyright law and thus directly relevant to copyright. Stop dissembling.

What? I didn't know that. Do you have a reference? I'm particularly interested in the origin — is this something that applies to countries with a common law tradition, a roman law tradition, does it originate in one of the copyright treaties, etc. That kind of question.

At a glance, it sounds as if those power stations need to pay for themselves in a few hours per week, and as soon as you get more transmission capacity from Scotland they're dead.

Give those constraints, of course they must be expensive if they are to exist at all.

Do I misunderstand anything?

The redacted screenshot at https://nxdomain.no/~peter/blogpix/likely_suspicious.jpg indicates that the sending server used an IPv6 address that ends with the digits 19. The SPF record for bsdly.net includes two IPv6 addresses, neither of them ends with 19. It also includes some more things, up to three layers of indirection so I'm not sure I checked everything, but I didn't see …19 anywhere.

I suspect that what we have here is a misconfiguration at bsdly.net and perhaps a poorly chosen error message at gmail.

You can even describe it with your own words.

I picked this at random from the middle of the page: "Notoriously, egg prices quadrupled over the past few years, after mass culls of hens to halt bird flu. But a typical basket of groceries has largely tracked overall inflation (see chart 2). That is no surprise: the inputs into grocery bills are a microcosm of the economy, encompassing goods costs (the food itself), wages (of cashiers and warehouse workers) and rent (paid by the supermarket)." Tell us with your own words what you see with your own eyes.

Oh god, collecting these screenshots must've magnified the pain so much.

It's odd, in a way — when you have a well-paying job, you have nothing from an accounting viewpoint and the owners of the organisation have a valuable asset. The skill that you contribute to the organisation is accounted for as a financial asset belonging to someone else. There are good reasons for that, the accounting viewpoint makes sense for accounting purposes.

In everyday parlance we say that you have a job and you have the skill, and in reality you actually are free to take your skill elsewhere. Your skill plays a part in the market value of your employer, but you stay or leave at your whim, the "owner" of the "asset" doesn't decide.

Those billions are IMO mostly an accounting fiction — it's better to think of it in the way that our ordinary language suggests, where your actions are yours, your skills are yours, etc. If you drive to work, that's your emissions based on your choice, it's not a choice made by someone whose great wealth is mostly an assessment of your skill and earning power.

If you build a house and need some concrete for that, CO₂ is emitted in a concrete factory, but I think it's better to regard the emitted CO₂ as a choice made by you than as emissions by the billionaire who owns the factory. Even if the accountants assess the value of the factory as a large number.

Ah, let's have a long discussion of this.

Unicode avoids "different" and "same", https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/ uses phrases like compatibility equivalence.

The whole thing is complicated, because it actually is complicated in the real world. You can spell the name of Gießen "Giessen" and most Germans consider it correct even if not ideal, but spelling Massachusetts "Maßachusetts" is plainly wrong in German text. The relationship between ß and ss isn't symmetric. Unicode captures that complexity, when you get into the fine details.

Don't hold your breath. Those fields need investment.

I think you mean: If your entire customer-facing service is built on Cloudflare and the rest doesn't matter, etc.

But I suspect that the rest matters. For example, will you benefit from having your domain working when the admin team works on an outage? Yes/maybe/no? My answer is the middle one.