The future of the Forex industry - page 132
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Without the ulcer, and combing the text, it's very nice.)
But noooo! there's no way to do it without it! 😊
Answer a couple of questions.
1) Do you think that the richer a man is, the smarter he is and vice versa?
2) do you think Perelman is clever and why would he prefer to live in poverty, giving up a million quid or euro bonus I can't remember exactly?
1. Usually (though not always) there is a good positive correlation, but intelligence is generally speaking different, and financial success requires certain abilities, communication skills and at least some entrepreneurship, for example a mathematician or programmer is very good in his field but can be quite lame in life.
2. Perelman has long ago discovered a warp-tunnel to the distant parts of the universe in his flat, why would he need some paper with numbers?
Layola (there are other pronunciations of the beginning of Jesuit too) the end justifies the means ...
Apparently everything depends on the initial situation and randomly on the result unfortunately, in the evaluation of descendants.
Morality of descendants and executors of methods usually differ unfortunately)
The immorality of trading is not obvious. You have to start with secondary instruments. Exchanges were a marketing breakthrough. BUT the secondary instruments have created their own world, and the world of vital production has been relegated to the background. To put it very simplistically and crudely. Insurance at the first level is a balance sheet instrument. But over-insurance on the 3rd level of the world gave super crises. The tool of balance has led to a severe imbalance)
Yes, I got the impression, you like Huxley more than Orwell?
It is generally accepted that there are some unconditionally unacceptable things that cannot be done even for the common good, don't you agree?
In some situations, however, the criticality of the decision may be so great that it is impossible to get everyone's consent or to come up with a balanced plan. In that case, simply one strong-willed person or a group of very strident or strong-willed people will go ahead and forcefully do as they see fit, but that is an exceptional event.
Exchanges also have a useful function, besides they are voluntary contracts, no one is forced to go there.
Derivatives are not being forced into our pockets.
The crises would have happened without them, although you can certainly argue about 2007-8, but that is a separate issue.
Huxley and Orwell are both good! And Zamyatin isn't bad either.
Layola (there are other pronunciations of the beginning of Jesuit too) the end justifies the means ...
Apparently everything depends on the initial situation and randomly on the result unfortunately, in the evaluation of descendants.
Morality of descendants and executors of methods usually differ unfortunately)
The immorality of trading is not obvious. You have to start with secondary instruments. Exchanges were a marketing breakthrough. BUT the secondary instruments have created their own world, and the world of vital production has been relegated to the background. To put it very simplistically and crudely. Insurance at the first level is a balance sheet instrument. But over-insurance on the 3rd level of the world gave super crises. The tool of balance has led to a severe imbalance)
Yes, I got the impression you liked Huxley more than Orwell?
Didn't really dissect such an important thing as selling hope.
People come for hope and buy it in this or that product (DU or PAMM or some tricky contract or advisor-rail😁) and it turns out not to work as well as the buyer expected.
Or rather it works, but buyer is not quite sure of the real risks 😃
That's the direction one would go in saying that trading and investing are immoral...
1. there is usually (though not always) a good positive correlation, but intelligence is generally speaking different, financial success requires certain abilities, communication skills and at least some entrepreneurship, a mathematician or programmer, for example, is very good in his field, but in life can be a wimp
2. Perelman has long ago discovered a warp tunnel to the remote parts of the universe in his flat, what for does he need some paper with numbers?
What does it mean? Can you tell me in plain language? You are abusing all sorts of obscure terms and references to authorities. I understand that you want to show off your education. It's not a vice, of course. But you communicate with simple people and you will be better understood if you communicate with them in simple Russian. "The Russian language is rich and powerful" and you can always find suitable and understandable synonyms in it.
What does it mean?
A wormhole, the context is clear.
a wormhole, the context is clear.
I get that he's being ironic, but what's the underlying irony? What, is he trying to tell me he's off his rocker?
I get that he is being ironic, but what is the underlying irony? What, is he trying to tell me he's off his rocker?
It's not irony, but a reference to the fact that Perelman's worldview is so different from the average homo sapiens that he is unable to comprehend his motives and aspirations.
I don't care, you can tear yourself to shreds or you can mush yourself 😀😁😂
Do you really think I'm going to worry about some boorish plebs from the blackwoods making faces at me?
I'm a highly cultured capitalised noble gentleman, not a geeky wonder with parts and associates with a cleaner 🤣
I'm invulnerable to you and you'll forever remember your shame here...
You really made me laugh.)))
If anyone didn't understand you before, that's their understanding of the issue and taste of understanding.
You can't hide your sovokness and show you're a gentleman.
No matter how you spin it.
I'm not against speaking out about the beautiful life))). But the colours smeared in the toilet ...
It's not irony, but a reference to the fact that Perelman has such a different worldview from the average homo sapiens that he is unable to comprehend his motives and aspirations.
I have a hypothesis as to why he turned down the prize. He was encouraged to solve the problem by a mathematician from the USA. (I do not remember his last name). He too was struggling to solve it and had already made one correct step, but further movement to the goal was impossible. But Perelman found the right continuation and solved the problem completely. The committee did not take this fact into consideration and awarded the prize only to Perelman. Perelman, being a modest and sensitive man, was afraid that some mathematicians might accuse him of self-interest and of awarding the prize to both of them and preferred to refuse it altogether.