Interesting, will definitely look into it.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 16:49, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just found out you can transfer and payout to credit cards on CEX. Sars
doesn't track Credit Cards XD
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:46 PM, euraima tobias <euraima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m in two minds atm, discussing it with my gf. I once told her I’ll sell
off some eth at $500 , and now it’s $500 Lol. I think the smart thing to do
is take advantage of the huge pump then re-enter after the correction. When
to pull out is a very hard choice (pun intended xD). I pulled out early
with Dash *sigh*
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 16:41, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@khan are you pulling out or holding? This crypto bubble is the biggest
its ever been. The question is do you ride the wave or pull out? I'm up
17% since this morning. That's some scary shit.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I have a hunch that the disconnect between the purely theoretical
aspects of these scenarios and what happens in real life is essentially
more complex variants of the donkey in the middle of equidistant food
sources.
From a purely theoretical perspective, he will starve to death because
there's nothing to break the stalemate that the a logical brain encounters
when trying to determine which food source he should go for. Something
similar was observed in an experiment involving a game theory students and
students in other fields. I don't remember the exact details, but the
students were asked to distribute money in the most "fair" way possible (or
something like that) without leaving a remainder. The catch was that it
wasn't really possible to do so - there would always be someone who got
less. All the game theory students agreed that every participant should
get nothing. While in the other groups people were happy to just take the
free money, even if someone else was got slightly more than them.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A lot of these things make happy sense from an academic point of view,
but start failing when you apply them to real life and anecdotal evidence.
There are very few social norms which are universally accepted.
*From:* cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Ilitirit Sama
*Sent:* 29 November 2017 2:28 PM
*To:* cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: Hello
I don't think anyone fully understands that rationale for the
decisions in the UM game. Game Theorists and Economists say "it makes no
sense". Neuroscientists, sociologists and anthropologists look at it an
evolutionary and/or social perspective.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I completely get the altruistic one, but the self-control one has a
lot broader connotations, which is why I want to make sure that I’m
understanding it correctly. It would indicate that something like
‘fairness’ is a pretty common moral compass for most cultures (the
experiment has been conducted all over the place). Secondly, we all have
the desire to punish people who don’t play fairly and we sometimes hold
back on that, but when drunk and operating without real thinking, we want
fairness to exist.
*From:* cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Ilitirit Sama
*Sent:* 29 November 2017 2:12 PM
*To:* cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: Hello
There's a version of this with kids that parents use to encourage
fairness.
Both kids want a portion of something. Tell the one kid he gets to
split it up, but the other gets to choose the portion.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Donaldson, Alasdair <
alasdair.donaldson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Question here for anyone with a basic understanding of game theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ultimatum-5Fgame&d=DwMFaQ&c=0TzQCy9lgR5hSW-bDg5HA76y7nf4lvOzvVop5GM3Y80&r=3188cCLKqrRVUgvzUimFxNxHH_Hcs83no5DXOBKTq-g&m=017SyTO2dSADqgkcTkKlhWWD07JfOh7iz-YtQgJu8Fc&s=jFpkGuYamVEuIyTmUltNaBz8LGLDx8oEudhe2NcuQiU&e=>
In the Ultimatum game, I have an amount of money, say R40. I have to
split it between me and someone else – like you. If you reject my offer, I
get nothing. Now the best situation for all is for me to split it equally
–
R20 for you and R20 for me. But what if I go with less, like me keeping
R30
and you getting R10. At some point you will get pissed off and say no. For
example, if I say keep R39 and give you R1, you will most likely tell me
to
get bent. That means that I get nothing. It also means that you get
nothing. You could’ve had R1 for nothing, but chose not to. This doesn’t
make sense logically. If I know you’re working on logic, I’ll maximise my
return.
Why this is important is because in experiments, people didn’t accept
the really low offers (R1). Since the only outcome of that is everyone
getting nothing, it means that people don’t operate on the whole
‘rational,
utility-maximising’ decisions that economists are so happy to fall back
on.
So… why do people reject the low offers? Two main reasons:
1. Altruistic punishment – you reject the R1 to teach me a
lesson – that I shouldn’t be greedy in the future.
2. Self control (see below)
By contrast, a *self-control* account suggests that rejections
constitute a failure to inhibit a desire to punish the first player for
making an unfair offer. Morewedge, Krishnamurti, and Ariely (2014) found
that intoxicated participants were more likely to reject unfair offers
than
sober participants.[11]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ultimatum-5Fgame-23cite-5Fnote-2D11&d=DwMFaQ&c=0TzQCy9lgR5hSW-bDg5HA76y7nf4lvOzvVop5GM3Y80&r=3188cCLKqrRVUgvzUimFxNxHH_Hcs83no5DXOBKTq-g&m=017SyTO2dSADqgkcTkKlhWWD07JfOh7iz-YtQgJu8Fc&s=GfxLOFLxir-maeC6K9bWzA3XVwQDDOaJ7GRRo-zykCo&e=>
As intoxication tends to exacerbate decision makers' prepotent response,
this result provides support for the self-control than the altruistic
punishment account. Other research from social cognitive neuroscience
supports this finding.[12]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Ultimatum-5Fgame-23cite-5Fnote-2D12&d=DwMFaQ&c=0TzQCy9lgR5hSW-bDg5HA76y7nf4lvOzvVop5GM3Y80&r=3188cCLKqrRVUgvzUimFxNxHH_Hcs83no5DXOBKTq-g&m=017SyTO2dSADqgkcTkKlhWWD07JfOh7iz-YtQgJu8Fc&s=SJoEK0HFqXE23S7OUpYuVILDhTwbM4dKaJrOrs6Cunc&e=>
Anyone know what exactly they’re trying to say here? It sounds like
they’re saying that everyone has desire to punish someone for being unfair
and that sometimes we can’t stop that desire from manifesting. This isn’t
necessarily to teach them a lesson. We’re just wanting to punish them.
Is that right or am I misreading this completely?
*From:* cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
cpt-fgc-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Ilitirit Sama
*Sent:* 29 November 2017 1:22 PM
*To:* cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: Hello
As for "cleaning" the money, there are many ways to skin a cat. Most
common (although SARS has made this slightly harder) is to just upgrade
your property.
Buy it for a million. Spend R500k on upgrades (no paper trails).
Sell for R2million.
There are still loads of people who will do work like this for cash.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Wynand-Ben <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
They used to use the intercom to get me to approve or deny visitors
entry.
Its been borked for a while.
They rebuilding the whole security entrance area next year with a
similar system again using our cellphones.
Gonna get a call and do a whole press 1 to approve or press 2 to deny
entry etc.
------------------------------
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send
to
the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in
this
e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or
error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such.
Information
about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
obtained from your KPMG representative.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
AntiVirus software.
------------------------------
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send
to
the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in
this
e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or
error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such.
Information
about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
obtained from your KPMG representative.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
AntiVirus software.
------------------------------
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this communication in
error, please address with the subject heading "Received in error," send
to
the original sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited and may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in
this
e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
KPMG client engagement letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information
in this e-mail and any attachments that do not relate to the official
business of the firm are neither given nor endorsed by it.
KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or
error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG
International") on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing services
to you. KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss
entity that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent
firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International provides no
services to clients. Each member firm of KPMG International is a legally
distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as such.
Information
about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG member firm can be
obtained from your KPMG representative.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by
AntiVirus software.
