Another request if you have a paper or other source; not because I doubt it though! I'm interested in how velocity of money would properly be modeled and observed as a function of the Lorenz curve.
I'm pretty amateur when it comes to math, but I'm working on it.
Why would there be a specific law covering this situation? It's an obvious violation of fiduciary responsibility to buy back shares in an inefficient, price-elevating fashion.
Isn't there a bunch of methane trapped in icebergs or something?
I'll be honest, I'm convinced humans have a big hand in climate change, but I can't seem to determine whether I merely need to lobby my rep for green legislation or start taking survival classes for an impending collapse of JIT supply chains and society in general.
You're right, there is time of methane trapped in permafrost. Those are melting now and realising the gas.
Lobby for green legislation. We need to influence politics to finally act in a serious manner. As we accomplished with the ozone hole as mentioned in the article
I went looking around to see if I could find a better resource to help you dive into the topic in a more accessible manner. To my surprise Khan Academy seems to have a decent sequence of lectures on Color Science. I didn't watch the videos but the topics cover a reasonable portion of the basic knowledge one needs to start exploring Color Science:
How does cash raise market cap aside from maybe causing uninformed investors to drive the price up? Isn't market cap share price * shares outstanding? Hence, capitalization in the market, rather than capital available internally.
Imagine a company has 100 shares and for argument's sake let's assume that company is never going to turn a profit but break even forever.
What would you pay for one of those shares? Nothing, right? The company is worthless.
Now imagine that same company has a bank balance of $100. Each share now also owns a 1% share of the bank balance (because it owns 1% of the company itself). How much would you pay for such a share? Anything below a dollar seems pretty good to me!
In other words, the more valuable assets the company holds, the more we'd be willing to pay for shares of the company, all else equal. This is called the 'book value' of a company and is total assets - intangible assets (patents, goodwill) and liabilities.
Note that the real-life situation is slightly more complex because you can't always get at the assets, even if you buy the shares for cents on the dollar. But the general idea is that you can buy shares until you have enough voting rights to dole out the cash as dividends.
Yes market cap is share price * shares outstanding. The shares that are bought-back are destroyed, lowering the number of shares outstanding, increasing the per-share price.
I have been semi-diligently (4-5 hours/week as adult life allows) following this approach coupled with working my way through math texts. Although I zero problem grasping concepts and parsing propositions and examples, I find it very difficult to solve end-of-chapter problems. No more than 4 or 5 problems a week, and hence my advancement is agonizingly slow.
I started with Spivak & Apostol but reverted to Riley and Hobson's Foundations text because I was struggling too much with the A&S's problems. Given that I did very well on symbolic-logic proofs in an undergrad course, I figured it would be easy enough to get into math if I had diligence and sincere interest. After having been a 'D' student, my recognition of arithmetic and algebraic expressions and manipulations is hopelessly sub-par. Even many of the R&H problems are beyond my grasp.
My approach has been informed by a sincere desire to engage with mathematics (one I unfortunately did not have through my formal education) as well as several "How do I self-teach maths" threads on HN, Reddit, and /sci/. Previously I had chalked up my poor grades to an undisciplined, unmotivated youth. Now I'm beginning to suspect I may simply not have the requisite intelligence, or am at least outside the age where I had enough time and neuroplasticity to pick math up in earnest.
Given that 1) you have zero problem grasping the concepts and understanding the examples, and 2) your difficulty is in solving the end-of-chapter problems; I think it is almost certain that your issue is one of making small mistakes that throw off your solutions (for example, didn't change a plus to a minus sign, left off a term, made an incorrect assumption, etc.). You just need to learn how to double-check your work and figure out where you went wrong. This is a skill that everyone doing nontrivial math has to learn. In a formal learning environment, you constantly get feedback on your mistakes through the grading process, which you obviously don't get when self-learning. My advice is to work the example problems before looking at the solution. After you have worked it yourself, you can then easily see where you went wrong. You should also get books of solved problems that let you practice this more extensively. There are problem books for pretty much every undergrad math topic as well as some grad-level ones. A lot of textbooks even have solution manuals that will show you how to solve the end-of-chapter problems in the textbook. An Amazon search with the word "solutions" and whatever math topic you want should turn up many examples. With practice, you learn how to detect errors and rectify them even when there is no solution manual.
There's magazines like this one (https://www.agweb.com/farmjournal); however it sounds like we'd have different ideas of small though. Outside of direct to consumer farmers market type opperations, "small" farms in the US are still measured in thousands of acres (just, 4 figures instead of 6).
The meta markets in how and when you sell crops (pre sale on the futures market vs sale at harvest, vs store and wait for commodities prices to be ideal) is, honestly fascinating and so different from the image of the "farmer" in popular culture.
Was his field /r/bitcoin? I'm pretty sure the entire world saw that one coming.