1) He just means that if the principal sum is reduced by 10% increments, of that initial sum, over 10 yrs, the result is zero. He did not specify any cumulative application of the 10% reduction, to subsequent, annually diminishing results, admittedly, following common convention.
-
-
-
Sure, he just means 10 x 10 = 100 (which puts a floor under the retardation).
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
the verb "to nick land" would've been a bigger giveaway
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think they're called 'Neoreactionaries', not 'calories'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How could one even finish writing such a thing without realizing one's mistake?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're obviously a medical professional who specialises in sex therapy and religions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It has six followers. It's an alt by an alt.
-
One of twitter's good design choices is the ability to block notifications specifically from folk with default avatars. I don't use it, but it's epistemically valid.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
2) That he does not follow that convention, does not disqualify his statement, which is obviously predicated on a principal sum calculation.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.