Looks like Trump could be arrested on Monday or Tuesday.

Wow. Hard to imagine writing that. Sort of stuff that happens in banana republics.

Not gonna make this political. That can go elsewhere. But apparently rumors of riots breaking out of that happens.

A world defining event for sure - not sure if it will happen. If it does, it sets unbelievable precedent. I imagine it would spook markets but not sure.

BaylorSpineGuy said:

---

Looks like Trump could be arrested on Monday or Tuesday.

Wow. Hard to imagine writing that. Sort of stuff that happens in banana republics.

Not gonna make this political. That can go elsewhere. But apparently rumors of riots breaking out of that happens.

A world defining event for sure - not sure if it will happen. If it does, it sets unbelievable precedent. I imagine it would spook markets but not sure.

---

Who is starting and spreading rumors of riots? Who is leaking that an indictment is coming?

Where are all of these leaks originating?

We are getting played again.

txaggie_08 said:

---

Trumps the one saying he's going to be arrested. I don't know about riots.

---

Trump replied to the rumors about his indictment and riots. Who started those rumors?

Trump is out of office, so I am not sure about riots unless there is civil unrest afterwards. Regardless of what you believe, this is bad and I don't think it's smart to try to put a guy who knows US and world secrets in prison. I think there is an argument that he can't possibly have a fair trial.

My point is that indictments are secret and happen very quickly and very quietly, unless someone wants noise and coverage.

Professional prosecutions try to minimize the distractions in order to make the indictment and the arrest quietly to avoid any issues with the defendant or any associates.

This prosecution is not following the normal professional process. We can all have our own theories as to why.

What is inarguable is that this is being handled in the way to have the maximum press coverage and increase tensions and not to seek a fair trial based upon the evidence.

JUST IN: Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett has been in touch with senior officials in President Joe Biden’s administration in recent days as the regional banking crisis unfolds https://t.co/m6Evy4bqWr

— Bloomberg (@business) March 18, 2023

MID-SIZE BANK COALITION IN A LETTER TO REGULATORS: MIDSIZE US BANKS ASK FDIC TO INSURE ALL DEPOSITS FOR 2 YEARS.

— Breaking Market News (@financialjuice) March 18, 2023

FWIW Doc, Matt Drudge sold his site years ago to a progressive org and it's not the conservative site that it once was. I'm not going to go into the politics behind it on this thread though.

Red Pear Luke (BCS) said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

JUST IN: Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett has been in touch with senior officials in President Joe Biden’s administration in recent days as the regional banking crisis unfolds https://t.co/m6Evy4bqWr

— Bloomberg (@business) March 18, 2023

MID-SIZE BANK COALITION IN A LETTER TO REGULATORS: MIDSIZE US BANKS ASK FDIC TO INSURE ALL DEPOSITS FOR 2 YEARS.

— Breaking Market News (@financialjuice) March 18, 2023

---

You can keep watching liquidity being thrown into the fire but it doesn't stop anything. It's not stemming the Tide. Everyone is going to be holding their hands for a handout.

So at what point do you (as Jpow and Yellen) decide to not give anymore handouts to banks? Do they even get there? Yellen's already walked herself back from the original "we got everybody comment" - I have to imagine there has to be some cutoff point…. But maybe not

---

This is why JPow raising 25 bps this week to save face would be a mistake. He's the one that caused this banking situation, but his dumbass will probably raise and make it worse. Regardless, it will be the last imho. If it isn't, then it's intentional and the government wants to collapse the system.

ProgN said:

---

I'm reading this article and I want to see y'alls answers:

---

9 right…?

You do the parentheses first and then you go order of operations. 6/2*3

RigsTx said:

---

ProgN said:

---

I'm reading this article and I want to see y'alls answers:

---

9 right…?

You do the parentheses first and then you go order of operations. 6/2*3

---

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11863217/Can-solve-seemingly-simple-math-problem-left-internet-stumped.html

Quote:

---

Following today's PEMDAS standards, the correct process for solving the equation is to address what is in the parenthesis first.

So, 1+2 becomes 3, and the equation becomes 6 2 (3). The parenthesis around the three indicates it is to be multiplied by what comes before it, so the equation translates to 6 2 x 3.

As multiplication and division are of the same precedence, the equation then should be solved left to right: 6 2 becomes 3, making the equation 3 x 3, resulting in a correct solution of 9.

Nine is the answer, but following old standards of how equations were written, one could come to a solution of 1.

Following the old route, people would still address the parenthesis first, resulting in 6 2 (3).

But old formatting - which Phresh Talwalkar of the puzzle website Mind Your Decisions believes may have been used to work with typesetting and printing formatting from the day - directed people to divide whatever is on the left side of the division sign (the obelus) by the sum of what was to its right. Talwalkar said he saw this approach to the order of operations present in text books from 1917.

By those standards, people would solve 2 x 3 first, resulting in 6, then divide 6 by 6, resulting in an answer of 1.

---

That is now considered the correct answer, but for olds like me, we were taught the answer would be '1'.

Guess I'm old then cause I got to 1 as well. And I'm 32 years old.

Red Pear Luke (BCS) said:

---

Guess I'm old then cause I got to 1 as well. And I'm 32 years old.

---

Red Pear Luke (BCS) said:

---

Guess I'm old then cause I got to 1 as well. And I'm 32 years old.

---

I'm definitely old at 59 and I got 1.

Answer is 1. I'm 40 this year.

I got 1 or 9 because I couldn't remember the order of operation and since there was no description of the intent behind the math I decided it did not matter. I wasn't even aware the order of operations had changed at some point. I still say it's the intent behind how it's written that matters.

If a programming language is reading it, 9, if you were seeing it on a math test, 1.

The answer is 9. The equation is read left to right following the parenthesis.

ProgN said:

---

I'm reading this article and I want to see y'alls answers:

---

This problem is like a market prediction. Will it go up or down? Well, that depends on how you interpret it.