Can anyone help me figure out the difference between "chromium - Same as ..." and "x86-64 - Chromium + 64-bit binaries"? It's annoying you can't read the rest of option 2 making it harder to understand. Thanks.
In simple terms, the binary options signals are indicators that are provided on the website of the broker and are constructed by the experts and professionals who are associated with the member to give the signals at the right time and in real-time. The concept of trading binary options is very easy and uncomplicated to understand. All you need to start trading 60 second options is to choose the asset you will trade, start your binary option signal software, then log on to your broker and you are ready to go. Now you can choose from call or put options that expire in a minute, making you richer almost instantly. There is a learning curve to everything in life and understanding binary options is no different in this respect. While you are learning , consider utilizing signals to achieve a few victories while you learn to understand the ins and outs of the system. It takes a fair amount of time to do all of the research and choose which binary options to buy and which ones to sell as well as when to do each. Binary options have always been hailed as an easy path for beginners into the world of trading and profits. Still, thanks to some excellent binary options software programs that you can install, your chances of actually making money are higher. For more information, please visit our website https://vfxalert.com/en/
“When I first heard about Binary options, I thought it was impossible. How can you have a purely digital currency? Can’t I just copy your hard drive and have your...? I didn’t understand how that could be done, and then I looked into it and it was brilliant” INBOX ME, IF INTERESTED
KIMEX.IO offers up to 85% payouts, one of the highest payouts in the binary options market. WHAT IS BINARY OPTION Binary options are a simple way to trade price fluctuations in multiple global markets, but a trader needs to understand the risks and rewards of these often-misunderstood instruments.
Where to get the best binary options course online?
Where to get the best binary options course online? Binary options have provided countless people with an all new way to get engaged in the trading world, and their simple to understand nature and quick expiry times means that they are perfect for new traders as well as experienced ones. But in order to really get the most from them you’ll still want to be able to learn all that you can about them. From the basics to the more advanced aspects of this type of trading, giving yourself a deep well of knowledge translates to better results when you start making trades. In order to really master the art of the binary trade you’ll want to look into binary options courses online. These online training courses allow you to learn from the comfort of your home or office, when you have the time to do so. And in providing you with an easy way to learn about binary options, they’ll give you the potential to increase your annual earnings by a tremendous amount. The Elements Of The Best Binary Options Course So what should you be looking for when taking a binary options course online? There are several key things that stand out as being worth your attention. Here are the elements that a good binary options course will have. Review them and you’ll quickly see that we offer the best course for the money and that we can help you become a binary trading master quickly. • Full Range Of Subjects – While the fundamentals are easy enough to understand, the fact is that binary trading still depends on a lot of different variables. Look for a binary options course that covers as much as possible so you can master this type of trading for yourself. • Professional – Don’t sign up for amateur offered courses or just watch a YouTube video and call yourself educated. Professional courses like ours offer you an education from experienced professionals. • Convenient – You have a life and a job, and that means that you likely don’t’ have time to devote hours and hours each day on your studies. Online courses provide you with convenience that lets you learn when you can. • Multiple Training Methods – From text lessons to videos to images, you’ll want to find the types of courses that actually teach you everything in numerous ways. In short, look for an online binary options course that provides you with a full, comprehensive education in the subject. All of these factors and more are present in our online binary options course, making it the absolute best choice for anyone looking to understand binary options to their fullest. Getting The Most From Your Course Once you’re ready to start learning, there are a few tips to help you get the most from our course. Here are some of the key things that you’ll want to keep in mind as you begin the process of educating yourself. • Commit – It is well worth devoting the time and energy to learning binary options trading basics. The more you know, the better your investments can be and the more effective you’ll be as a trader. • Find Forums – If you want to really get the most, join online binary options forums. These serve as a hub for those trading binary options and are a great place to ask questions, gain more information, and learn from the experience of others. • Learn Through Doing – While you shouldn’t dive into binary options trading completely blind, once you have completed some of the basics of education it’s worth trying out a trade for yourself here and there using the knowledge you’ve gained. Since binary options trades can often be conducted for as little as $10, that’s an investment in furthering your education. • Expand Your Knowledge – We can teach you all of the basics and help you fully understand how to trade binary options with success. But beyond that, you also need to take the information you gain from your course and apply it to your own situation. What works for one person may not fit into someone else’s strategy. As a result, expand your knowledge through your own research and apply it to what you’re trying to accomplish. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that you need to remember that trading does come with inherent risks. Taking the time to learn as much as you can about binary options is the key to being able to get the best possible results from it. There’s no question that experience will teach you even more about the world of binary options trading, but going into the process with a better understanding of it and what it entails will help ensure that you’re able to enjoy the best benefits possible from it. Keep the points above in mind and sign up for your online classes, and you’ll be able to start trading with confidence. From my experience: https://www.365binaryoption.com
We tried to list down the top Binary Option sites on the basis of their offered trade and Forex options. First of all you need to understand that all the Binary sites do not give you the same trading options. Also every site has its own policy for funding and withdraws process.
If God is all knowing, that inherently means we lack free will and cannot alter what is predetermined for us through god's knowledge.
My argument: If God knows everything, is a perfect being, and is infallable, we would not be able to have free will to act outside of his knowledge of what happens in the future. I posted a version of this on AskAChristian as one of three questions in my post on there, but I feel it would be a better post for this subreddit and might generate better discussion. I'm an atheist but was born and raised Christian (Catholic) so obviously my understanding of god and religion stems from that and other outside sources I have been exposed to. I believe it is a general consensus (at least among many Christians) that God is an all-knowing, infallible, perfect being, or at least something along the lines of that definition. Meaning God knows everything, including what will happen in the future, and that god cannot be wrong. But I think that creates an issue with free will as I will explain below. --------‐------ The way I see it, we have 2 options with this problem:
God knows everything, including our future actions and the consequences of those actions. This means we are not free to make any choice that God does not already know we will make. Thus, we do not have true free will to act outside of God's knowledge of what will happen and cannot form our own fate.
Us humans do indeed have the ability to make our own choices that alter the future, even if it is not in line with what God knows to be true. This means that God was wrong about what will happen and is therefore not perfect or infallable.
Edit: I removed a section about 2 common arguments I see and will add this small part: Steps of this:
God knows our future actions.
This means we are not able to act outside of god's knowledge as that would mean god was incorrect and imperfect.
Number 2 implies we must choose what is already known by god. This inherently means we do not have free will to make our own choices if the probabilities of our choices are binary (either 100% probability or a 0% probability).
‐------‐-------- This conundrum also implies god already knows who is going to hell or heaven before we are even born. To me that makes our time on Earth seem completely pointless in the situation a god actually does exist. Unless we are merely here acting out our roles that god already wrote the script for.
I understand the subjunctive now; it's easy and I'll tell you about it. The problem is that we have been taught to think of it almost literally backwards
For the last couple of weeks I've been studying the uses of the subjunctive intensively for a couple of weeks, wading through inane comments like "it's just something only natives know for sure; to everyone else it is invisible magic" (a very unfortunately common and reductive opinion I've seen around), scouring forums to study how people use it, reading guides and books and the whole thing. Not much seemed to be working; the whole thing still seemed arbitrary, impossible to predict, and totally random. But last night I had a breakthrough, and damn near everything fell into place. I read a few things; I read a great write up on how in spirit English uses the "idea" of the subjunctive mood in various auxiliary verbs from "I think..." to "could", etc, and how it often parallels things in Spanish. I then read through a whole chain of spanishdict questions and answers on the topic, and someone made a comment talking to a new learner who used the indicative in the context of questioning whether or not she had popped a ball when she should have used the subjunctive. His comment was "if you're uncertain that the ball was popped...then why is your next sentence TELLING ME that the ball was popped?" I frowned. "Why would that say that?" I asked myself. "It wasn't as if she was literally telling him that the ball was popped from her perspective, instead she was just...she was...just..." Finally it all hit me; the subjunctive mood makes NO SENSE... on its own. The fatal flaw -- one that comes down to a critical misunderstanding between how english's and Spanish's primary moods operate -- isn't that I didn't understand the subjunctive per se It was that I had no real idea what the hell the indicative mood really was, nor how well-learned Spanish people interpret it to their ears. How could I? Nobody had explained it well to me. EVERYONE only talks about the subjunctive but never the indicative. Because it's obvious, right? It's the same in English as it is in Spanish, right? Let's barely even touch on it when discussing the subjunctive, how could they be related? It's like English, the subjunctive is just a weird thing dangling from under it. No it's not. Guys, the indicative mood is far stronger than english's. It isn't about an implication of rules, it isn't about an implication of concrete reality. It is ABOUT reality, truths, and our perceptions of that truth, directly. There is no implication, it's the outright direct meaning. ANY time we use the indicative, we communicate that what we are saying is a FACT to our perception, and everyone else will hear us like that's what we're saying even if the sentence would imply otherwise; it doesn't act subordinate to the sentence context, so if you use it in the wrong context they crash into each other. This is the key. The subjunctive isn't about being emotional, it isn't about possibilities, it isn't about hypotheticals per se. It is about NOT being the indicative, and literally the only real "rule" to the subjunctive is "do I want to give my sentences a strong meaning of truth, factual declaration, and concrete reality here? Or would that focus hurt my sentence?" The subjunctive is a mood of avoidance. It's used to AVOID the implications of the indicative. It can only properly be understood by contrast to spanish's usage of the indicative mood, and once you properly grasp that it's the easiest thing in the world to see. I was up till 5 am checking all the examples I could find, reading Spanish forums online and all their usages. I couldn't find one that didn't make sense to me anymore, not a single damn one. All those weird irregularities? Sensible. The reasons for why it seems to spread over so many theoretical topics? Sensible. I had done it, I'd cracked the meaning behind things. And regardless of what some people on forums had claimed, it's absolutely not magic or something you can only get by speaking for 10+ years. What it is is simply misexplained by means of being talked about in a vacuum. And with it came a LOT of sudden, cascading realizations about Spanish and how it truly differs from English. I will explain all of this below to help my fellow English-to-spanish people. First off: "Nice catch", you probably think, "but it's so abstract. How does realizing the implications of the indicative mood help me?" Allow me to demonstrate. First off, it must be said that the indicative is way simpler than the subjunctive in terms of its scope. In fact the entire reason why the subjunctive seems to cover so many things in theory is just that it is nothing more and nothing less than a reflection of everything the indicative is not, so covers more topics on paper (even if it's used far less frequently in reality) Like I said, literally all of it makes sense when you just flip things around and denote subjunctive as "that thing that gets called when the STRONG indicative mood would ruin things with its overwhelming presence." We can interrogate sentences in Spanish, piece by piece, and I'll show you exactly how it lines up. Let's take the classical example. "Estoy feliz que estés aqui!" Let's NOT ask ourselves why the subjunctive is here...instead, let's ask ourselves why the indicative ISN'T here. Indicative comes off as -- again, not merely implies like equivalent statements in English but outright states a purpose of -- declaring facts, discussing concrete reality of the here and now, our declarative plans, etc. Can you see why this would be "wrong"? It is in fact not wrong, at all -- it's just incongruous in context. If you said "estas aqui" with the mood that declares facts...well, at best you just announced to them that they are here, carrying the meaning of you wanting to let them know this fact. Rather bizarre under most circumstances, seeing as how they damn well know that they are already here and don't need us to declare this for them! So, normally we won't do it unless in context we really do want to declare this to them for some reason. "Es posible que él es aqui"Let's apply the same process! "Why wouldn't the indicative be good here?" Well let's look at the first half. "Es posible que..." alright so what we say next is possible! And next we say "es aquí". As in, we used the declarative, factual, concrete reality mood. In other words if we used "es" here, we would be outright saying that we firmly believe -- that it is a fact to us -- that this man is here Well if we firmly believed that already, then why the hell did we lead with "it's possible?" This is just an incongruous statement! Therefore, we don't use it like this (unless we really do want to make such an incongruous statement). Talking about an object that doesn't or may exist? Well when you refer to it with the indicative, you DIRECTLY STATE that to you that object might as well be reality. Poetic, but also rather delusional. Therefore, we don't use the indicative. Making conditional plans, like "we will go to the mall once grandma arrives?" If you use the indicative on the latter half, you directly state that her arriving is your reality...even if she hasn't arrived yet. See what I said above about being delusional. And so on and so on. Whenever you are confused about why a subjunctive is used, the proper question is not "why is it here". The proper question is "why is the indicative not here?" It's a subtle difference -- but an important one. What we have to understand is that Spanish is not a neutral-statement language. It is binary. You ARE asserting reality. Or you are not; those are the only options, and to speak in the indicative is to presume to be asserting your interpretation of facts for others to hear. It is not a subtle effect or theory, this is how the spanish-trained brain will unconsciously view your sentences and why it will tell them that 'something' is off about what you said. You indicated to them that you wish to discuss something factual that is in fact not, and their / our-future-brains aren't really sure how to interpret that. In fact, if you aren't already thinking of the indicative in this manner or interpreting sentences with that subtext, it's time to start; that's how the spanish speaking mind will interpret its usage, and if we want to learn this language well we need to interpret it as that as well. Those are the examples off the top of my head. I will now explain why, in terms of the structure of english and spanish, this idea is so hard to get across to native english speakers. This entire effect is a direct contrast to English, which is why it's alien to use until properly explain, and why to native Spanish speakers our confusion is foreign. To both of you -- english-to-spanish students and people who speak spanish first, i will note the following lingual truth that most people don't realize by virtue of not thinking about it: english is a flexible, and often neutral language. Let me repeat that; english is NEUTRAL by default. We DON'T communicate this kind of meaning with our basic sentences, ever. English is like a buffet rather than a binary. Its base forms are almost always implicationless by design specifically so that we can choose to insert auxiliary words to enchant it with such meanings as English speakers please. This is likely also why most of its true subjunctive mood has faded into niche forms; English genuinely has no real need of it with so many ways of putting a sentence together. Spanish, by and large, has 2, and you will not escape from them nor their implications. (Well and imperative, but I'm not talking about it because both of our languages share that one nearly identically in concept). A statement is a statement, indicative is your reality and your attempts to declare facts for others to hear and discuss, and subjunctive is the only way to indicate that what you speak of isn't that. That's it. That's all there is to it. Also, I'll tell all spanish-first readers who happen to read this the same thing i told my Spanish friends irl: you have no idea how confusing the subjunctive is when you are coming from a place where the "primary" prose can imply anything due to a) that being what we think of thanks to English b) most people not going out of their way to firmly correct this misconception. It would be damn near useless and indeed extremely random to perceive in usage if not for its reflections on the indicative, which is different from what we think at first. THIS is why your English speaking friends who are trying to learn Spanish struggle so hard with the concept, while you just know it. (And on the flip, why none of my Spanish-first friends realized the neutrality underlining English until i directly pointed it out to them. A lot of us aren't aware of the underlying mechanics; this is fine going from Spanish to English since English is flexible as hell, but not so much the other way around, unfortunately for us.) Now, after all of this, can I make a request to the general community: can we PLEASE not presume that the subjunctive is magic and that the indicative is so obvious? That kind of common notion is at least in part why a lot of English-to-spanish students wrestle with the concept. For some reason we're often taught (I sure was) that the indicative in Spanish is synonymous with English and to not think more on it in comparison to its bizarre cousin, when in reality the differences between English normal prose and Spanish's indicative are both easy enough to explain and also EXACTLY why the subjunctive exists. Trying to explain how and where to use the subjunctive is like trying to put a car together with a wrench and a few bolts; good luck figuring it out easily with so much essential context missing. Maybe my teachers just didn't think about it? Do people in general not just realize this crucial difference between English's loose neutral structure and Spanish's much stricter and meaning-laden structure? Who knows. And no, realizing this doesn't mean we don't have to practice. I'll forget use cases, not be able to realize when I needed to switch moods until hindsight, etc. I recommend "demystifying the subjunctive" for a book, it helped me out immensely. But at least now we understand it. Learning, as Spanishdude on YouTube says, is just an act of giving context to things we already know, and now we can do that without being lost. It IS a simple and easy to grasp concept at its heart, it's just not usually explained well and requires explaining what precisely is the difference between how english approaches delivering information and how Spanish does. Former is neutral, latter always communicates a meaning. The indicative in particular always imparts a sense of speaking of concrete reality no matter what sentence it happened to be in, and the subjunctive is nothing more than its replacement for when the indicative's strong statements on reality simply don't work with the matters being discussed. Of the two, the indicative is both more strict and also more narrow, and thus the clause of 'use indicative until its determinate attitude of only being used to address factual reality shits the sentence up' reigns best for the quickest and easiest way to conceptually grasp the subjunctive. It is all about the indicative; always has been. Anyway that's all I got. I'm finally going to bed, work will suck tomorrow but oh well, I'm too happy to care. After that I'll...maybe finally learn some decent vocabulary. I'm a heavily grammar based learner, so this was actually one of the first stops on my way through my new language, so I've still got a lot of learning to do. Still, now that i get this, I am much more confident of the rest of the way onward. ---------- Couple of more fun tidbits, if anyone is still reading. I also realized the English conditional is WAY wider than Spanish's, and that this is in part because in English it has come close to replacing separated subjunctive grammar in a lot of cases. If you ever notice how often we through "can" and "could" around, it is in part because of this. I also realized that in a theoretical sense, the "true" purpose of future tense in Spanish is to discuss plans for the future, not to indicate that it will happen. Technically a small detail and probably obvious to most, but for some reason I needed this realization to realize why the subjunctive isn't triggered by its speculation; merely declaring plans is a concrete thing, after all. For some reason in English I get the subtle sense of trying to will over the future when I use it. Might be a slight language difference in intent, or maybe I'm just presumptuous about the future in English. Finally, just a piece of trivia I liked; I realized "to think" and "creer / pensar" aren't really good translations for each other in implication. You ever wondered why it doesn't trigger the subjunctive in a positive usage? This helps to reinforce one last bit; for such things when it comes to certainty vs uncertainty, it's likely just a concept being used slightly differently in Spanish. While they mean literally the same thing, their connotations are nearly inverted. Spanish uses it to affirm that you believe something to be true (hence why it's also translated as to believe), while English uses it to instead imply subjectivity and impart doubt to a clause. It would absolutely be a subjunctive trigger in Spanish if it were transplanted directly since our usage of it in spirit is completely synonymous with Spanish's own usual triggers, but well it isn't. My Spanish speaking colleagues thought that one was interesting in particular for some reason, maybe they didn't really know how i had meant it this whole time?
There's been some discussion on Mikasa in the sub lately, both positive and negative, and it's led me to think a bit more about her character. In particular, I've been thinking about her character flaw, what it is exactly, and whether or not she's developed past it – and if she has, what that means for her in the final arc. Isayama once said that Mikasa is a character who 'expresses herself via actions and facial expressions quite a lot'. I sometimes feel that that's why a lot of her personal story gets overlooked – because she's not loud about it, and nor is anyone else. She's one of the most reticent characters in the manga and, more importantly, deliberately written that way. It's intentional on Isayama's part for Mikasa to mostly 'express herself via actions and facial expressions', and so, as difficult as it might be to follow, that's mostly how her personal journey is told. Because she doesn't say much, talks a lot with her fists, and is the team's natural and aggressive protector, it's easy to assume that there's nothing more happening there. Isayama clearly doesn't mean for readers to overlook her, but some inevitably do because she's not as obvious and outspoken as other characters. She's not like Eren, whose dissatisfaction with the world drives him to continuously push back, or like Armin, whose self-doubt and fear of responsibility constantly battle with his natural intelligence and sense of duty. She doesn't outwardly appear to suffer from the neuroses that afflict a lot of the others in the main cast. As a result, her development as a character isn't easy to track. Where does it start? Where does it end? What even is it? It's fair to ask, in Mikasa's case, whether she even has a character arc to begin with. What changes about her? Does she actually react in any way to her experiences and evolve as a result of them, or does she remain the same from beginning to end?
Fans' opinions on Mikasa's character are often based on her feelings for Eren and the actions she undertakes to protect him. It irks some readers that Eren is Mikasa's priority, and that her life seems to revolve around him. Because they consider this her character flaw, they expect that her character development is going to rectify this flaw; that she'll move away from Eren, whether physically, emotionally, or mentally, and find something else to live for. In a 2016 interview, Isayama said: 'Mikasa's growth probably involves separation from Eren'. People generally stop at that and go from there – they either believe that Mikasa can't grow as a person unless Eren stops being important to her, or that a Mikasa who isn't separated from Eren (emotionally, mentally, or physically) is inherently a flawed character. Isayama's explanation of the 'separation' he means is never usually discussed, even though he actually does go on to clarify it: 'Mikasa's growth probably involves separation from Eren. By separation, I mean she might be able to return to that ordinary girl that she used to be in childhood'. If the all-important 'separation' for her growth is about Mikasa returning to the 'ordinary girl' she used to be, it's worth asking what isn't ordinary about the girl Mikasa became, and when that change happened. And once that 'non-ordinary' quality about Mikasa becomes apparent, it can be identified as Mikasa's flaw; the deficiency in her character that we can expect her to overcome. Mikasa loving someone or wanting to protect them isn't in itself a flaw. It's a fairly ordinary, reasonable thing, and it's something plenty of other characters already display in the story: Franz wants to protect Hanna; Ymir, Historia; Eren, Mikasa; Kenny, Uri; Levi, Erwin, and so on ad infinitum. There's a reason that Mikasa's love for and general protectiveness towards Eren never changes. It's because it's not something she was ever meant to 'grow past' or 'get over'. It was never her flaw. Her flaw is fear. Mikasa's overprotectiveness of Eren is what isn't 'ordinary', because it's connected to her deep, abiding fear of loss. Her desire to constantly stay by him is pitiful because, above all else, it represents her fear and her mistrust of the world. And it's why her 'separation' from him is about more than just 'Mikasa finds something else to do apart from care about Eren'; it's a return to her being 'the ordinary girl of her childhood': a normal girl who isn't constantly fixated on how the people she loves can die at any moment: https://preview.redd.it/gpraaqxt1sq51.jpg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbcb1a366ae0b26f287143aa4d7e916d1c7b3c49
When Levi says they'll focus on one objective and that won't include outright killing Annie, Mikasa's one objection is: 'How many of our comrades has she murdered?' Mikasa has no problem being straightforward with Levi. If her first and only consideration was Eren, she'd voice it. She'd even get away with it, because they all need Eren at this point. But instead, she reveals that she has a separate, personal desire: avenging their dead. Mikasa wants to kill Annie for her own reasons.
Levi states that their goal is to retrieve Eren. He gives himself the main role of 'slash[ing] away' at the titan, meaning that he will be the one to actually save Eren, who is in the titan's mouth. And he gives Mikasa the job of distracting Annie. Mikasa accepts asecondary role in a planthat isspecificallyto rescue Eren.
And when she does break from the plan, it's not so she can go and get Eren herself. Mikasa risks the objective of the mission – and Levi, and Eren – by going in for the kill. Mikasa risks the plan to save Eren by acting on her own desire to kill Annie.
Two important shifts take place here for Mikasa. One, she entrusts Eren to someone else, as demonstrated by her action of allowing Levi to take the lead. Two, her focus stops being, even for a short while, Eren – as confirmed by her facial expression when Levi challenges her on it, because she doesn't seem to immediately realise she's even capable of that: The objective was: Forget killing the Titan. Rescue Eren. And Mikasa, for no matter how short a time, lost sight of that. The fearful, overprotective aspect of Mikasa's relationship with Eren is beginning to change, because her relationship with the rest of her world is beginning to change. With his rescue of Eren in the forest, Levi proves to Mikasa that other people are just as capable of protecting Eren as she is. And if she happens to take her mind off Eren for a bit, it doesn't mean he'll die. This is where the 'separation' begins. Mikasa starts to accept distance between herself and Eren; the distance of being able to trust others with him, of not needing to constantly be with him and personally oversee his safety. And it leads to this watershed moment in the Uprising arc: Mikasa. Whilst Eren has been kidnapped. And all they know is that he's inside a coffin with some random undertaker at some random inn. Maybe. In Chapter 4, Mikasa couldn't handle Eren being in a different part of the city from her during a mission because of how afraid she was that he'd die without her. In Chapter 30, she let Levi take the lead on getting Eren back, and was shocked when she realised that, even for an instant, she'd prioritised something else over him. In Chapter 57, Eren's been kidnapped, no one's been certain for two days about where he is or what's happening to him, and Mikasa is, well, as pictured above. The debilitating fear that used to tie Mikasa to Eren is gone for good. She's finally let Eren go, and discovered that it doesn't mean she'll lose him.
Post-timeskip Mikasa is in a good place, and long past the fear with which she faced the world as a young girl. She's with Eren, working with the Volunteers, and she and Armin are excited about the possibilities of the widening world. Then Eren effectively betrays the SC for reasons they can't fully understand, and, once again, Mikasa's world begins to change in alarming, unpredictable ways. https://preview.redd.it/y4f97ksi2sq51.png?width=346&format=png&auto=webp&s=a17a0410c8f25e97ee450b57d9636e5fc147b874 For the first time in a long time, she loses someone she loves. Eren's in jail and Mikasa remains by Sasha's grave, pondering the old words that bind her and Eren together: 'If we don't win, we die. If we win, we live. If we don't fight, we can't win.' Ironically enough, Sasha is the only character in the entire manga to have said those words apart from Eren and Mikasa themselves. And she's now dead as a result of Eren's fight. So what exactly is Eren fighting for, and what does winning that fight entail? This is the first time in the manga that Mikasa begins to doubt Eren, and the first time their bond has ever really been threatened. And not by the world, titans, or murderous kidnappers, but by Eren himself. The idea that there is beauty where cruelty also exists has informed Mikasa's perspective on the world since Eren wrapped his scarf around her. He showed her that it is possible for the two things to co-exist; for there to be human cruelty as well as human kindness, cold as well as warmth, life as well as death. But Eren is now showcasing the exact cruelty that Mikasa used him as a beacon against. What he's done is undoing what she believes in; it's not just that it's shaken her view of Eren – it threatens to undo Mikasa's whole world-view. In that same 2016 interview, Isayama spoke of Eren and Mikasa's eventual separation being ideological: 'If I were to draw the separation of Eren and Mikasa . . . Mikasa would have to endure the strain of being stuck between Eren and Armin. Even though she can sympathise with Armin, who considers things from a ''globalism'' perspective, it’s possible that she can't just let the more self-focused Eren go'. This ideological separation begins the moment Eren defects from the SC. It's from this point onwards that EMA's paths truly begin to diverge, and Mikasa in particular is presented with a choice that she's never had to face before. Of the two people she loves most in the world, does she choose the 'self-focused' Eren or the 'globalist' Armin? The choice she makes will most likely conclude Mikasa's character arc once and for all, and it's a choice that's been building since before the time-skip, represented by her interactions with two characters in particular: 1. Mikasa and Floch At the award ceremony in Chapter 90, Floch points out something interesting about Mikasa in what is otherwise an easily overlooked moment in the manga. Although multiple people were present on the rooftop during Serumbowl, he is the only one to explicitly draw attention to the fact that Mikasalet go. She resigned herself to losing Armin because Hanji convinced her that Erwin was more important to humanity and Mikasa's grief at losing him was something that would pass. https://preview.redd.it/oqjfh2gk2sq51.png?width=584&format=png&auto=webp&s=f13d8f9a80608e4ac8a85c30d3ddc79b751ad1dd Floch sees this as maturity, but the realisation that she was willing to let Armin go for the sake of humanity is something that Mikasa is shocked by. It makes her falter, and let go of Eren. Mikasa has always defined herself as Armin and Eren's protector; she's presented in the story as such, and she styles herself as such. She's the one who keeps Eren and Armin safe. But Floch's words make her realise that, on the rooftop, she was able to step away from that role – because her world has expanded beyond Armin and Eren. It has expanded to include Hanji and Levi and the other Scouts – and humanity. Mikasa is capable of making choices that hurt her deeply for the sake of a greater cause. 2. Louise and Mikasa Louise meets Mikasa on three occasions. The first time, Louise tells Mikasa she likes her because Mikasa saved her, and gave her something to strive for: 'You can't save anyone without power. It's okay for us to fight against unjust violence. That's what I learned' (109). In the same way Eren 'gave' Mikasa a motto to live by, Mikasa gave one to Louise. The second time, Louise tells Mikasa that she's happy to be by her side again, fighting for the same goal. Mikasa is ambivalent towards her. And she leaves her scarf behind, choosing to go and fight the titans without it. In between the second and third meetings, Mikasa talks to Armin. She asks him if he's really going to tell Connie to give up on his mother and let her remain a titan; Armin says yes, he is. When Mikasa asks what should be done about Eren, Armin replies that there's nothing to be done; he's a lost cause. After Armin leaves, Mikasa notices that the scarf is missing, and goes to retrieve it. The third and last time they meet, Louise is dying. She tells Mikasa that Eren wanted her to throw the scarf away, but she thought that she could take it to be close to Mikasa. Though she appears to sympathise with Louise's plight, Mikasa demands the scarf back from her. She walks away from Louise even as Louise tells her that she had no regrets, because she chased after Mikasa, devoting her heart. Each meeting between Louise and Mikasa mirrors, in an abbreviated way, the different stages Eren and Mikasa's relationship has gone through. 1: Louise's initial love and gratitude, and her taking Mikasa as an inspiration; 2: their fighting side by side as equals; and, finally, 3: their literal separation as Mikasa chooses to walk away. Louise reminds Mikasa of what Eren means to her. Mikasa never seeks to stop Louise from talking about her feelings; instead, she listens. She might not reciprocate, but she does understand. And her understanding Louise's love reminds her of her own. She walks away, but she takes the scarf with her. Despite what Armin said, and what Louise told her about Eren and the scarf, Mikasa chooses to keep a hold of it in the way she keeps a hold of the hope that Eren can still be brought back. Mikasa is capable of holding on to the person she loves even when he's gone too far. Mikasa Chooses . . . Mikasa Despite the apparently binary choice, Mikasa doesn't have to choose to side with Eren (allow the Rumbling to go ahead) or with Armin (kill Eren to stop him). She said it herself: there's a third option. Her way. Eren's wandered so far down his path that he's lost sight of Mikasa and of Armin; of what connects him to the world. Mikasa chooses, not to support him or to believe that he's a lost cause, but to remind him that walking away from his humanity doesn't mean that he can't turn around and walk back. Kruger said 'Anyone can become a god or a devil. All it takes is for someone to claim it for it to be true' (88). But if there's someone to challenge that belief, then the possibility remains of breaking the facade and setting the story straight – thereby freeing that person from the role they've either taken on out of necessity, or been assigned. It's something we've already seen happen. All it takes is for one person to question it, and the goddess falls apart to reveal an empty, unloved young girl, or the devil's mask cracks open to show the boy still grieving for the world he's lost. Ymir knows that Historia's faking it; Mikasa knows that Eren is kind. Each of them challenges the story that their loved one is telling in order to keep going: Historia to survive, Eren to achieve his dream. It took Mikasa years to truly overcome the cruelty she had seen as a child. Despite everything, she did, in the end, go back to being that 'ordinary girl'. She came to acknowledge that cruelty exists, as does death – but life must nevertheless be lived, people loved, experiences had, and faith kept. Seeing the beauty in a world that is inherently cruel is, and always has been, Mikasa's greatest strength. It's something she is capable of offering Eren, who no longer seems to believe in that duality, or in his own humanity. She can show him what he showed her; that the world isn't black or white, cruel or beautiful, dark or light. It's both. And it's possible to live with that.
Mikasa is no longer fighting to protect Eren from the world; she's fighting to protect the world from Eren. She's the person best suited to do that not only because she's his family, but because Eren's despair and anger at the world is what she might have ended up with herself. If any character was dealt a crueller hand by the world than Eren, or could have become as bitter about the world as him, it was Mikasa. But he stopped that from happening because his kindness showed her that the world, as bad as it was, had good in it. Little by little, Eren's abandoned that view of the world himself. He no longer sees both its beauty and its cruelty, but has confined himself to seeing - and acting on - only one. When they fought Annie in Stohess, Mikasa had to remind Eren that the world was cruel, because Eren had lost sight of that truth. Now, Eren's lost sight of another, equally valid truth; that the world, as cruel as it is, is also beautiful. That he, as inhuman as he thinks he is, is also kind. If Mikasa manages to 'bring Eren back', she'll have come full circle. She started off as a little girl who was seeking something, anything, to hold on to. She needed a saviour, and she got one in the form of Eren. In this scenario, she'll end as a saviour herself, someone who is now able to pass on the light that she once received. Her fear of the world and of losing her loved ones subsided; she managed to find the warmth she needed to carry on. She doesn't need Eren's scarf anymore – but he might need hers.
My perspective on Mikasa is that she's not a very obvious character when it comes to development, and so she sometimes appears static. And because so much of her drive is Eren, a lot of fans look to her relationship with Eren to change for proof that she's somehow developed. But Mikasa's obstacle, her personal flaw, isn't Eren himself, and never has been. Her flaw has always been her deep and debilitating fear about losing the people she loves – Eren and Armin – and her inability to really trust or love anyone apart from them. Mikasa's separation from Eren = her beginning to trust the rest of the world not to stab him in the chest, almost behead him, or eat him alive whilst she's not there. It's good for her because it means she stops being so terrified that she'll lose Eren, not because it means she'll stop loving him or wanting him to be safe. And she reached that point of separation a long time ago in the manga. It was fully realised the moment she decided to trust Levi during the Uprising arc, despite the fact that Eren was literally gone from her side and she had no way of knowing whether he was dead or alive. The final confrontation is where Eren and Mikasa's ideological separation, the one discussed by Isayama in the interview, will/won't occur. It – and its finer details – can unfold in a number of ways, and each one could mean something different for Mikasa's character. But her choosing to face Eren in this way is a natural culmination of her development until now. I've no concrete theories on what will actually happen once the Alliance reaches Eren, but I'm fairly certain that Mikasa is central to the resolution of this arc. And what with the way she's been written by Isayama so far, that's no bad thing. So, to finally end this ramble, I hope that this post at least offers people a different perspective on Mikasa's character and how it's changed over the course of the story. I look forward to reading any other observations/thoughts on Mikasa's development that people might have. Many thanks for giving mine a read!
No gods, no kings, only NOPE - or divining the future with options flows. [Part 2: A Random Walk and Price Decoherence]
tl;dr - 1) Stock prices move continuously because different market participants end up having different ideas of the future value of a stock. 2) This difference in valuations is part of the reason we have volatility. 3) IV crush happens as a consequence of future possibilities being extinguished at a binary catalyst like earnings very rapidly, as opposed to the normal slow way. I promise I'm getting to the good parts, but I'm also writing these as a guidebook which I can use later so people never have to talk to me again. In this part I'm going to start veering a bit into the speculation territory (e.g. ideas I believe or have investigated, but aren't necessary well known) but I'm going to make sure those sections are properly marked as speculative (and you can feel free to ignore/dismiss them). Marked as [Lily's Speculation]. As some commenters have pointed out in prior posts, I do not have formal training in mathematical finance/finance (my background is computer science, discrete math, and biology), so often times I may use terms that I've invented which have analogous/existing terms (e.g. the law of surprise is actually the first law of asset pricing applied to derivatives under risk neutral measure, but I didn't know that until I read the papers later). If I mention something wrong, please do feel free to either PM me (not chat) or post a comment, and we can discuss/I can correct it! As always, buyer beware. This is the first section also where you do need to be familiar with the topics I've previously discussed, which I'll add links to shortly (my previous posts: 1) https://www.reddit.com/thecorporation/comments/jck2q6/no_gods_no_kings_only_nope_or_divining_the_future/ 2) https://www.reddit.com/thecorporation/comments/jbzzq4/why_options_trading_sucks_or_the_law_of_surprise/ --- A Random Walk Down Bankruptcy A lot of us have probably seen the term random walk, maybe in the context of A Random Walk Down Wall Street, which seems like a great book I'll add to my list of things to read once I figure out how to control my ADD. It seems obvious, then, what a random walk means - when something is moving, it basically means that the next move is random. So if my stock price is $1 and I can move in $0.01 increments, if the stock price is truly randomly walking, there should be roughly a 50% chance it moves up in the next second (to $1.01) or down (to $0.99). If you've traded for more than a hot minute, this concept should seem obvious, because especially on the intraday, it usually isn't clear why price moves the way it does (despite what chartists want to believe, and I'm sure a ton of people in the comments will tell me why fettucini lines and Batman doji tell them things). For a simple example, we can look at SPY's chart from Friday, Oct 16, 2020: https://preview.redd.it/jgg3kup9dpt51.png?width=1368&format=png&auto=webp&s=bf8e08402ccef20832c96203126b60c23277ccc2 I'm sure again 7 different people can tell me 7 different things about why the chart shape looks the way it does, or how if I delve deeply enough into it I can find out which man I'm going to marry in 2024, but to a rationalist it isn't exactly apparent at why SPY's price declined from 349 to ~348.5 at around 12:30 PM, or why it picked up until about 3 PM and then went into precipitous decline (although I do have theories why it declined EOD, but that's for another post). An extremely clever or bored reader from my previous posts could say, "Is this the price formation you mentioned in the law of surprise post?" and the answer is yes. If we relate it back to the individual buyer or seller, we can explain the concept of a stock price's random walk as such:
Most market participants have an idea of an asset's truevalue (an idealized concept of what an asset is actually worth), which they can derive using models or possibly enough brain damage. However, an asset's value at any given time is not worth one value (usually*), but a spectrum of possible values, usually representing what the asset should be worth in the future. A naive way we can represent this without delving into to much math (because let's face it, most of us fucking hate math) is: Current value of an asset = sum over all (future possible value multiplied by the likelihood of that value)
In actuality, most models aren't that simple, but it does generalize to a ton of more complicated models which you need more than 7th grade math to understand (Black-Scholes, DCF, blah blah blah). While in many cases the first term - future possible value - is well defined (Tesla is worth exactly $420.69 billion in 2021, and maybe we all can agree on that by looking at car sales and Musk tweets), where it gets more interesting is the second term - the likelihood of that value occurring. [In actuality, the price of a stock for instance is way more complicated, because a stock can be sold at any point in the future (versus in my example, just the value in 2021), and needs to account for all values of Tesla at any given point in the future.] How do we estimate the second term - the likelihood of that value occurring? For this class, it actually doesn't matter, because the key concept is this idea: even with all market participants having the same information, we do anticipate that every participant will have a slightly different view of future likelihoods. Why is that? There's many reasons. Some participants may undervalue risk (aka WSB FD/yolos) and therefore weight probabilities of gaining lots of money much more heavily than going bankrupt. Some participants may have alternative data which improves their understanding of what the future values should be, therefore letting them see opportunity. Some participants might overvalue liquidity, and just want to GTFO and thereby accept a haircut on their asset's value to quickly unload it (especially in markets with low liquidity). Some participants may just be yoloing and not even know what Fastly does before putting their account all in weekly puts (god bless you). In the end, it doesn't matter either the why, but the what: because of these diverging interpretations, over time, we can expect the price of an asset to drift from the current value even with no new information added. In most cases, the calculations that market participants use (which I will, as a Lily-ism, call the future expected payoff function, or FEPF) ends up being quite similar in aggregate, and this is why asset prices likely tend to move slightly up and down for no reason (or rather, this is one interpretation of why). At this point, I expect the 20% of you who know what I'm talking about or have a finance background to say, "Oh but blah blah efficient market hypothesis contradicts random walk blah blah blah" and you're correct, but it also legitimately doesn't matter here. In the long run, stock prices are clearly not a random walk, because a stock's value is obviously tied to the company's fundamentals (knock on wood I don't regret saying this in the 2020s). However, intraday, in the absence of new, public information, it becomes a close enough approximation. Also, some of you might wonder what happens when the future expected payoff function (FEPF) I mentioned before ends up wildly diverging for a stock between participants. This could happen because all of us try to short Nikola because it's quite obviously a joke (so our FEPF for Nikola could, let's say, be 0), while the 20 or so remaining bagholders at NikolaCorporation decide that their FEPF of Nikola is $10,000,000 a share). One of the interesting things which intuitively makes sense, is for nearly all stocks, the amount of divergence among market participants in their FEPF increases substantially as you get farther into the future. This intuitively makes sense, even if you've already quit trying to understand what I'm saying. It's quite easy to say, if at 12:51 PM SPY is worth 350.21 that likely at 12:52 PM SPY will be worth 350.10 or 350.30 in all likelihood. Obviously there are cases this doesn't hold, but more likely than not, prices tend to follow each other, and don't gap up/down hard intraday. However, what if I asked you - given SPY is worth 350.21 at 12:51 PM today, what will it be worth in 2022? Many people will then try to half ass some DD about interest rates and Trump fleeing to Ecuador to value SPY at 150, while others will assume bull markets will continue indefinitely and SPY will obviously be 7000 by then. The truth is -- no one actually knows, because if you did, you wouldn't be reading a reddit post on this at 2 AM in your jammies. In fact, if you could somehow figure out the FEPF of all market participants at any given time, assuming no new information occurs, you should be able to roughly predict the true value of an asset infinitely far into the future (hint: this doesn't exactly hold, but again don't @ me). Now if you do have a finance background, I expect gears will have clicked for some of you, and you may see strong analogies between the FEPF divergence I mentioned, and a concept we're all at least partially familiar with - volatility. Volatility and Price Decoherence ("IV Crush") Volatility, just like the Greeks, isn't exactly a real thing. Most of us have some familiarity with implied volatility on options, mostly when we get IV crushed the first time and realize we just lost $3000 on Tesla calls. If we assume that the current price should represent the weighted likelihoods of all future prices (the random walk), volatility implies the following two things:
Volatility reflects the uncertainty of the current price
Volatility reflects the uncertainty of the future price for every point in the future where the asset has value (up to expiry for options)
[Ignore this section if you aren't pedantic] There's obviously more complex mathematics, because I'm sure some of you will argue in the comments that IV doesn't go up monotonically as option expiry date goes longer and longer into the future, and you're correct (this is because asset pricing reflects drift rate and other factors, as well as certain assets like the VIX end up having cost of carry). Volatility in options is interesting as well, because in actuality, it isn't something that can be exactly computed -- it arises as a plug between the idealized value of an option (the modeled price) and the real, market value of an option (the spot price). Additionally, because the makeup of market participants in an asset's market changes over time, and new information also comes in (thereby increasing likelihood of some possibilities and reducing it for others), volatility does not remain constant over time, either. Conceptually, volatility also is pretty easy to understand. But what about our friend, IV crush? I'm sure some of you have bought options to play events, the most common one being earnings reports, which happen quarterly for every company due to regulations. For the more savvy, you might know of expected move, which is a calculation that uses the volatility (and therefore price) increase of at-the-money options about a month out to calculate how much the options market forecasts the underlying stock price to move as a response to ER. Binary Catalyst Events and Price Decoherence Remember what I said about price formation being a gradual, continuous process? In the face of special circumstances, in particularly binary catalyst events - events where the outcome is one of two choices, good (1) or bad (0) - the gradual part gets thrown out the window. Earnings in particular is a common and notable case of a binary event, because the price will go down (assuming the company did not meet the market's expectations) or up (assuming the company exceeded the market's expectations) (it will rarely stay flat, so I'm not going to address that case). Earnings especially is interesting, because unlike other catalytic events, they're pre-scheduled (so the whole market expects them at a certain date/time) and usually have publicly released pre-estimations (guidance, analyst predictions). This separates them from other binary catalysts (e.g. FSLY dipping 30% on guidance update) because the market has ample time to anticipate the event, and participants therefore have time to speculate and hedge on the event. In most binary catalyst events, we see rapid fluctuations in price, usually called a gap up or gap down, which is caused by participants rapidly intaking new information and changing their FEPF accordingly. This is for the most part an anticipated adjustment to the FEPF based on the expectation that earnings is a Very Big Deal (TM), and is the reason why volatility and therefore option premiums increase so dramatically before earnings. What makes earnings so interesting in particular is the dramatic effect it can have on all market participants FEPF, as opposed to let's say a Trump tweet, or more people dying of coronavirus. In lots of cases, especially the FEPF of the short term (3-6 months) rapidly changes in response to updated guidance about a company, causing large portions of the future possibility spectrum to rapidly and spectacularly go to zero. In an instant, your Tesla 10/30 800Cs go from "some value" to "not worth the electrons they're printed on". [Lily's Speculation] This phenomena, I like to call price decoherence, mostly as an analogy to quantum mechanical processes which produce similar results (the collapse of a wavefunction on observation). Price decoherence occurs at a widespread but minor scale continuously, which we normally call price formation (and explains portions of the random walk derivation explained above), but hits a special limit in the face of binary catalyst events, as in an instant rapid portions of the future expected payoff function are extinguished, versus a more gradual process which occurs over time (as an option nears expiration). Price decoherence, mathematically, ends up being a more generalizable case of the phenomenon we all love to hate - IV crush. Price decoherence during earnings collapses the future expected payoff function of a ticker, leading large portions of the option chain to be effectively worthless (IV crush). It has interesting implications, especially in the case of hedged option sellers, our dear Market Makers. This is because given the expectation that they maintain delta-gamma neutral, and now many of the options they have written are now worthless and have 0 delta, what do they now have to do? They have to unwind. [/Lily's Speculation] - Lily
Possibility 1: Mormonism is not true, but you sincerely believe that it is and live your life accordingly. Possibility 2: Mormonism is true, but you sincerely believe that it is not and you live your life accordingly. Between these two possibilities, which do you think carries the greater risk? Which would you choose if you could choose one, recognizing that within my hypothetical scenario, I’m stipulating that whatever one comes to believe, that belief has been arrived at honestly and sincerely? Here’s my brief analysis. In the first option, you live your life as a believing mormon, but the religion turns out not to be true. What have you given up and what have you gained? No doubt, mormonism offers a lot, but I find the good things that mormonism offers can also be found within other constructs or communities. Is it really worth it to live the strict standards of mormonism if it’s not actually true? I enjoy my morning cup of coffee and the quiet moments of “zen” that it provides. I enjoy the freedom to responsibly have adult beverages when I feel like it, and the freedom to choose my own underwear. Most of all, I cherish the freedom to follow my own intellect and reasoning and desire to follow the truth wherever that leads without feeling like I must confine my conclusions within a proscribed belief system. These things add value and enjoyment to my life that I would be missing out on in following mormonism. If it all turned out not to be true, then this would be a huge loss for this one life that I get to live. In the second option, I still get to enjoy these same things, but instead mormonism turns out to be true. As long as I am being honest and sincere in my approach, the God of mormonism will judge me according to my sincere understanding of things. In this scenario, I’m really no worse off and got to live a fulfilling life. If the God of mormonism condemns me eternally to some lesser degree of glory for my honest pursuit of truth, well then, I wouldn’t want to be in the same kingdom with that God anyway. So in my analysis, scenario 2 is vastly more appealing and carries far less risk than scenario 1. Of course there are other possibilities than this binary I am setting up, but between the two, what would you choose? Which of these mormon Pascal wagers would you be less scared of?
CMV: Cosmetic Genital Surgeries on Intersex Children Shouldn't be Legal
Nature doesn't follow the boundaries that humans have created to define male and female. Internal and external genitalia, chromosomes, gonads, and hormones don't always align with the binary classifications. And this is not a rare occurrence. According to what is thought to be the most accurate study to date (Blackless, "How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis"), approximately 2% of the population is born with differences in sex development, aka bodies that don't align with what is typically male or female. That is the same as the percentage of people with green eyes or red hair- ~156 million people. Differences in sex development aren't anomalous, they are an expected biological variation on the spectrum of sex development. But western/modern culture doesn't recognize this and actively erases the existence of intersex traits because they don't conform to the binary model we created. Due to the pressure to fit in with the social understanding of male and female, "gender normalizing" surgeries are often performed. These are rarely medically necessary and take place even when the infant is perfectly healthy. These surgeries didn't start because medical professionals were didn't know the sex of the infant, they started because they thought society wouldn't be able to accept their bodies' differences as the sex they were. Essentially, they are only done to enforce gender norms. Even when they present no harm to the infant, doctors pathologize intersex traits and present them as a medical emergency. For the majority of cases, the only "medical emergency" is that intersex traits challenge the sex binary of modern society and the medical professionals' ideas of gender and sex. Infants and children cannot consent, so these surgeries also violate their right to autonomy over their bodies and futures. They are irreversible and can have lifelong consequences. When it is done with parental consent, the parents who make the decision for their children are often uninformed and pressured by the doctors. The surgical procedures are also an issue in and of themselves. They often only focus on heteronormative sexual performance. For example, the surgically constructed vaginal canal just has to be “a hole big enough to fit a typical-sized penis. It is not required to be self-lubricating or even to be at all sensitive” (Dreger). Clitoridectomies (the removal or reduction of the clitoris) are associated with permanent nerve damage, scarring, incontinence, loss of sexual function, and painful intercourse. Studies done by C.L. Minto and Peter Lee found that almost 80% of people who received clitoridectomies as an infant had difficulty experiencing sexual pleasure, 56% had dyspareunia, and approximately 40% had complete anorgasmia. Under the U.S law, female genital mutilation is considered to be barbaric and a human rights violation that's illegal even when a consenting adult requests it. Yet when it happens to infants with intersex conditions that cannot consent, it's apparently fine. Also, unnecessary gonadectomies in infants makes them sterile, taking away their choice to have kids and forcing them to rely on HRT for the rest of their life. There is also evidence that genital surgery on infants has worse outcomes than for adults. The results of vaginoplasties tend to be be more successful when the patient has higher estrogen levels and there is a reduced rate of vaginal stenosis when performed in adulthood. The scar tissue can also limit the options for genital surgery that the patient might want/need in the future I'm completely pro cosmetic genital surgery once the intersex individual is old enough to consent and has been fully informed on the risks and benefits of the procedures. I'm also not against assigning a gender to an infant at birth, I just think that can be done without surgical intervention. I just don't see what's wrong about waiting and seeing how the child develops (because doctors can attempt to predict this, but it is not 100% accurate) and what gender they end up identifying as (which cannot be predicted). The lack of consent for an irreversible surgery, violation of body integrity, risk of assigning the wrong gender, loss of sexual function, and nonconsensual sterilization are all huge red flags for me. The main arguments I ever see against this is that it makes things easier for the parents and the child's future "psychological health", but even those things have been disproved. Actually, research shows that besides physical harm, the surgeries can cause significant mental harm as well, including PTSD, gender dysphoria, iatrophobia, body dysmorphia, genophobia, depression, trust issues, suicidal ideation, anxiety disorders, self-loathing, etc (Tamar-Mattis). I suppose I do somewhat understand why it happens, especially since our society that cares so much about appearance and people tend to fear things that are "different." But that's not really a logical explanation and also doesn't mean it is ethical and should be legal. Also, society is much more accepting of differences now (as compared to the 1960's when these surgeries became popular) and sometimes even celebrates them. I can't think of any legitimate, evidence-backed reason as to why cosmetic genital surgery for infants with intersex conditions should continue to happen. I must admit that I have bias, as I am an intersex male who was subjected to cosmetic feminizing surgery as an infant and I'm pretty salty about it. However, I want to hear more from those who believe it should be done and am open to revising my views on the issue. I would like to ask that you include credible sources when mentioning statistics, etc. I am happy to dm my bibliography of sources to anyone who requests it.
Binary Options Trading Explained – The Bottom Line. As with any kind of investment, there are risks and rewards, so it helps to understand binary options before making your moves. With binary options trading explained, you have a somewhat clear understanding of how they work. When you start out, use demo accounts to practice, understand your ... Understanding Binary Options. Ta Làm Lớn Ở Hậu Cung Raw. estrategia 60 segundos opções binárias rsi tai tro choi tien len mien phi crash là gì. binary options 1.0 356 binary option binary options that offers mt4 Understanding Binary Options. Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone and is not intended to be a source of investment advice. It may not have not been reviewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners or the Investment company. Written By . David Rodeck. Updated on Monday, January 27, 2020. Binary ... Understanding digital options trading is a necessity if you want to trade binary options successfully. In this article we would outline want you need to know about digital options trading to kick start your success. To create ease of understanding we would define the terms used in binary options trading. Understanding Binary Options Search. Search This Blog Pages Home; APR vs APY; More… Posts. Quibids and Gambling. February 19, 2018 Share Get link; Facebook; Twitter; Pinterest; Email; Other Apps; Post a Comment Read more Recent posts. Quibids Profit Margin. February 19, 2018 Well in the last post we had talked about online bid-auctions in general and focused on Quibids with the understanding ... Understanding BINARY OPTIONS Lesson 01 Getting Started What are Binary Options? Binary options, sometimes called digital or fixed return options, are a simple yet exciting way to trade the financial markets, based on your opinion of whether the price of an asset—such as a share or commodity like gold—will close ABOVE or BELOW the current price over a certain period of time such as the next ... Understanding Binary Options. Sep 10, 2018 · Binary options trading is legitimate; it’s just that it is incredibly risky. In binary options trading, the trader must decide whether an underlying asset, such as a stock, a commodity, or a currency, will go up or down during a fixed period of time. Investors should be banco de dados wiki aware of fraudulent promotion schemes involving binary ... The complicated part is not understanding how binary options work, but rather how to make good predictions. That means studying up on market trends, closely following financial news and learning everything you can about potential trades so you can make better predictions than the average investor. If you do decide to move forward with trading binary options, make sure to do so responsibly ... In the EU, financial products are offered by Binary Understanding Binary Options Trading Investments (Europe) Ltd., W Business Centre, Level 3, Triq Dun Karm, Birkirkara, BKR 9033, Malta, licensed and regulated as a Category 3 Investment Services provider by the Malta Financial Services Authority (licence no. IS/70156).. In the Understanding Binary Options Trading Isle of Understanding Binary ... Binary options can involve the trading and hedging strategies used in trading traditional options. You should always conduct a market analysis prior to each trade. There are many variables to consider when trying to decide whether the price of a stock or other asset is going to increase or decrease within a specific time period. Without analysis, the risk of losing money increases substantially.
Full Explanation - Trading binary options live tutorial ...
Trusted spots blog https://trustedspots1.blogspot.com/?m=1 To register a free account on desktop or laptop, click here https://bit.ly/3ghvlt5 To register a f... Videos in the Understanding Binary Options Series. Skip navigation Sign in Understanding Binary Options (Pt4): The 'Safety in Numbers' or 'Majority Vote' Strategy - Duration: 8:06. GuaiShiba 5,951 views. 8:06. Understanding Binary Options (Pt9): Binary Options vs Option ... A video that describes the concepts of Support and Resistance, which while not limited to Binary Option Trading, are still relevant. These concepts when comb... Understanding Binary Options (Pt4): The 'Safety in Numbers' or 'Majority Vote' Strategy - Duration: 8:06. GuaiShiba 5,930 views. 8:06.