... tapi ...
1.
2.
Blood sugar concentration increases quicker with simpler sugars and higher surface areas. Increases slower with fats, starches, and lower surface areas. Increases slower when sugars and starches are slurried with fat and other substances.
---
The corollaries then appear to be :
PAS President publishes in Harakah ( saw it on X ) that secularism ( as a variety of blasphemy ) is a greater sin than murder. I wish to give this tweet a platform. It introduces fertile topics for discussion, which can improve national unity, if understood properly.
The point MPP is making here, is not immediately a legal point for non-Muslim citizens/NMC. For Muslim citizens/MC the laws regarding blasphemy would apply.The narrow legal space for public discussion appears to be ( I might be mistaken ) :
- 1. to invite MPP to say more about how (subject) should lead to what specific actions by MCs
- 1.1. perhaps a recent tangent is the recently passed Mufti bill which expands the legislative process to include policies declared legal by non-elected officials (too much to unpack in a single threaded chat here; mainly affects MCs)
- 2. to invite MPP to opine on how NMCs should interpret MPP's public statement (possibly MPP would play safe and say, no special comment, while inviting NMCs to convert to MCs)
- 3. To invite NMCs to opine on how they view MCs beliefs, and MPP's opinion on (subject) ; this part is limited by civil laws about what NMCs are allowed to say about MCs' beliefs and official teachings ( civil law is asymmetrical regarding various religions in Malaysia )
- 4. Given 1/2/3, to invite more public discourse on the { norms, legislated policy, executive policy }, and the shaping thereof over time. ( And as a legal caveat, one always has to highlight 'the purpose of this is to improve peace, and unity' in case the usual political activists start filing police reports calling for an investigation of activities that run afoul of sedition laws, etc. )
Overall, religion is a huge part of the 'bread and circus' industrial complex, so philosophy's (epistemology's) role is simply to encourage people to be aware of that.At some point it falls afoul of speech laws. The limits of this remain popular subjects in theory and in practice (referred to in the news under 3Rs). The entrepreneurship of developing the nation depends on risks being taken in this space. It is also possible to simply say no risks are welcome. This fluctuates according to the maturity of the discussants, I suppose.
Further banter :
The popular mechanism of politics since 1969 has been [ thing ] -> [ threat to national security ] -> [ ban the thing ]
So the relevant ontological and ethical questions regard the key parts of the system : "what is security?" "what is national security?" "how is it threatened?" "do the existing laws designed to protect national security, succeed, or are the laws self-defeating?" etc.
Saying 'sorry' may INCREASE the volatility of a negotiation!
A cute conversation/negotiation tactic that recently been drawn to my attention, by a salesperson I went on a date with. In their profession, they said, "we never say 'sorry', we only ask 'how can we do better?'"
In my own conversations, where I have mis-judged an audience to be of type (a), and said 'sorry', I have seen negotiations collapse immediately.
This is very interesting in retrospect. However it is not entirely new to me. Generally I would consider counterparties of type (b) to be inferior, culturally or psychically, so often I am searching for hidden triggers which reveal such weaknesses. As much as I might not have intended for a negotiation to collapse, I have always bet against the broader enterprise of negotiations with counterparties of inferior culture and/or intelligence.
I suppose I have to hold in mind that one day, I might be in a regrettable situation where the stakes are very high, and hinged on this risk management tactic.
I hypothesise that a human genome without emotional function is viable, if we change our culture. Needless to say I don't expect to be able to see this tested within my lifetime. 🙂
A study in asset allocation. Currently I lean towards minimising the loss of individual asset ledgers, and not minimising the loss of the general fund ledger. This is dumb isn't it? Well my hypothesis is that it is a good drill in asset allocation, for each of 18 assets, and so it will train me to improve governance of discrete components, and not just look at the net effect of a whole portfolio. I feel it is a challenging study, so that is unfortunately, the only guidance at this time. That's the problem with being both mandater and mandated, I suppose.
One of the problems I've lived with my entire life, is a style of national governance that is grandiose in federation, but crumbly at the microscale. I suppose this is just my reaction to that environment.
Two years of farting around without a clear focus on whether to focus on individual asset ledgers, or the entire portfolio. Probably due in good part to a lack of observability. This got fixed recently with a time-series dashboard of per-asset P&L - prior to which I was not-so-recently working with only a single column of net-to-date per-asset P&L. Ah well. Gradual improvements to ops.
Regulation : Always the sword that hands above the industry. Crypto may be to the 21st century what labour unions were to the 20th. Over time, as the movement's effect on global economic alpha peaks, there may be corrections in the legislative environment which pivot the world around the next big thing.
Banter :
mainly they are hedging against state interests. It is explicitly the hedge, so it is more accurate to say 'investing in anti-government technology' than 'investing in nothing'.
Further banter :
Value is what it's worth now, not what it's worth tomorrow. So not a predictable store. But if we want predictable stores, we buy low volatility, not high. Yet right now the market is buying volatility.
A long position on BTC is a bet that the future value (no specific time) is greater than the present. Pure momentum play. The only moat it has is market share, where the supply is constrained by validators, and demand by users.
The main near term risk to BTCUSD growth is states criminalising it (replaced with CBDC), or direct competition ( BTC.D shrinks massively from 65% ) which is a matter of losing brand equity.
One direct competition vector is tech disruption, the candidates are obvious (#1 ETH, #2 SOL, etc. ). The other vector is pure marketing, which is the common case. But so far no alt-coin marketing campaign has managed to kill BTC.D (share of asset class).
In the very longer term LTC.D, BCH.D, etc. have viable claim on BTC.D because in the long term BTC is not fancy anything. They might all lose to marketing.
XRP, ADA have brand equity based on being 'more' acceptable to states than BTC (ISO 20022).
I prefer to bet on the asset class as a whole. Generally I think the TOTAL ticker is the best benchmark for this.
Further banter :
Yes, I know, it's 'not an asset'
