The comment you replied to was correct, as M1 was expanded to include savings deposits.
Here's a link to a Q&A about the change, and the relevant explanation.
"3. Why are savings deposits being recognized on the H.6 statistical release as a transaction account?
Posted: 12/17/2020
A. As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board of Governors reduced reserve requirement ratios on net transaction accounts to 0 percent, effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions and rendered the regulatory distinction between reservable “transaction accounts” and nonreservable “savings deposits” unnecessary. On April 24, 2020, the Board removed this regulatory distinction by deleting the six-per-month transfer limit on savings deposits in Regulation D. This action resulted in savings deposits having the same liquidity characteristics as the transaction accounts currently reported as “Other checkable deposits” on the H.6 statistical release.
To account for the change in their liquidity characteristics, savings deposits will be recognized as a type of transaction account on the H.6 statistical release"
While Akerlof's Market for Lemons did consider cases where government intervention is necessary to preserve a market, like with health insurance markets (Medicare), he describes the "market for lemons" in the used car market as having been solved by warranties.
If someone brings a plum to a market for lemons, they can distinguish the quality of their product by offering a warranty on its purchase, something that sellers of lemons would be unwilling to do, because they want to pass the cost burden of the lemon onto the purchaser.
The full paper is fairly accessible, and worth a read.
Not sure how this could be applied to academia, one of the problems is that there can be significant gaps between perpetrating fraud and having it discovered, so the violators might still have an incentive to cheat.
If it is in regards to shareholders, then I believe the state in which you're incorporated would have jurisdiction.
If it's another type of case, for example one brought by an employee, it might be based on the employment laws of the state they are employed in, so the trial would happen in the state of their employment.
I'm sorry this is irrelevant to the current discussion, but you replied to one of my comments a couple weeks ago, and I can't reply there, so I'm leaving a response here.
Courts aren't dumb, though. It's a lot harder for an average person to fake something in their gmail outbox than it is for someone working for a corporation to delete emails from an inbox. Google could also possibly be sent a subpoena.
After learning earlier about Sam Altman's long-con at Reddit, I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone suggest that Emmett Shear accepted the job in order to help get Sam back into the company.
They were both members of the inaugural class of Y-Combinator, and all of Shear's published actions since accepting the role (like demanding evidence of Sam' wrongdoing) seem to have helped Sam return to his role.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that he did win, in that he might have accomplished exactly what he wanted when he accepted the role.
No sales took place. You can price something at whatever you want. If nobody is willing to pay that price, it does not have that value. If the price is less than you value it, you won't be willing to sell it.
Many people seem to believe in a notion of "intrinsic worth". There is no such thing. Trying to force such a thing using the law just results in a lot of deleterious distortions.
For example, when the government tries to fix the price of gold to a fiat currency, an inevitable monetary crisis follows.
You mean experimental evidence? I don't think our mass measurements are that precise.
Just to be clear, that statement is very well accepted physics, and we have plenty of evidence of bounding energy changing the mass of things on the more energetic reactions (the nuclear ones). It would be incredibly surprising (in "redo all of physics" surprising) if it didn't hold for chemical reactions too, but I don't think anybody has evidence.
You mean experimental evidence? I don't think our mass measurements are that precise.
You don't need to weigh individual atoms or molecules to take measurement!
Just to be clear, that statement is very well accepted physics, and we have plenty of evidence of bounding energy changing the mass of things on the more energetic reactions (the nuclear ones). It would be incredibly surprising (in "redo all of physics" surprising) if it didn't hold for chemical reactions too, but I don't think anybody has evidence.
Not sure I follow your direction here. Seems to be a conflation of three separate things, not necessarily compatible with each other. In classical physics mass and charge (of a particle) are different properties. One defines how particle behaves in response to forces, the other how it interacts with em fields. That's one. The other, if we go into relativistic physics, there's mass-energy equivalence (as stated by einstein)... however, charge itself isn't a form of energy, BUT charged particles can have energy associated with their electric fields that would contribute, in a sense, to the overall mass-energy of a system (which is usually ignored unless we're talking sub-atomic particles or high-energy physics). That's two. And then there's binding (not bounding) energy which represents the amount of energy required to split a system of particles into its non-interacting components (such as, in context of nuclear physics, splitting a nucleus into protons and neutrons).. or you've meant electron binding energy which represents amount of energy needed to remove an electron from an atom.. that'd be a third.
The mass ratios of charged particles, such as atomic and molecular ions, can be measured incredibly accurately in Penning traps. Some of the most accurate comparisons are between the mass-3 ions ³He⁺, HD⁺, T⁺, and H₃⁺. Of these, only H₃⁺ has long-lived excited states, and the different excitation energies are clearly resolved in the mass comparisons [1]. The binding energies are much larger and have to be taken into account in the comparisons.
> Can you point to some evidence for the claim that "a molecule of water is lighter than the oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that went into making it?
Not OP, but burning hydrogen in oxygen is exothermic. It makes intuitive sense that the energy from that reaction no longer contributes to the mass of its products.
"
The weight of a molecule of water (H2O) is the sum of the weights of the two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom that compose it. Here are the atomic weights of these elements:
Hydrogen (H): Approximately 1 atomic mass unit (amu)
Oxygen (O): Approximately 16 amu
So for a molecule of water:
2 Hydrogen atoms: 2 * 1 amu = 2 amu
1 Oxygen atom: 16 amu
Adding these together gives a total of 18 amu for a molecule of water.
This means that a molecule of water has the same weight as the sum of the weights of the two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom that compose it, because the molecule is simply a combination of these atoms. There's no loss or gain in weight when the atoms combine to form the molecule.
However, this does not take into account the minor decrease in mass that occurs during the formation of a water molecule due to the conversion of some mass into binding energy according to Einstein's equation E=mc^2. This decrease is incredibly small and generally not considered in standard atomic weight calculations, but it does technically make the water molecule ever so slightly lighter than the sum of its constituent atoms."
> the minor decrease in mass that occurs during the formation of a water molecule due to the conversion of some mass into binding energy according to Einstein's equation E=mc^2
Is highly imprecise at best, and misleading at worst.
It is true that the mass of the water molecule is slightly less than that of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms combined. It is not true that this excess mass is converted into "binding energy", binding energy is negative in stable molecules. That is the binding energy measures how much energy you would have to add to break up the molecule, or conversely, how much energy is lost (as heat/light/whatever) to the environment when the molecule is formed.
The mass is lower because it has been converted into heat in the environment, not because it has been converted into binding energy.
---------------
I would call this an instance of the language model producing convincing sounding nonsense (something that they do quite often when asked about technical stuff).
Okay, somebody explain these downvotes, because afaik none of these statements in this comment or the other downvoted comments about the mass of water are incorrect. Somebody make it make sense.
I believe this one is downvoted for quoting Chat GPT. The other one is downvoted not so much for the claim about water molecule mass, but because of the combative tone and feeling that it is challenging established physics in a somewhat shallow way, most likely.
It cracks me up that my comment is seen as "challenging established physics" (and being downvoted into oblivion) when literally everything I stated is established physics.
I really don't see what's controversial about what I've said that's riled up people so much...
It is factually incorrect in the assertion that the standard model can't explain the reduction in mass (special relativity and quantum mechanics work fine together. It's general relativity that is the problem). In fact mass-energy equivalence is a pretty core part of quantum mechanics.
> In fact mass-energy equivalence is a pretty core part of quantum mechanics.
It may be stated as such, and added in to equations as an external piece of knowledge from relativity, but this is cheating a bit.
Essentially, when we state that H2O has less mass than H+H+O, what we actually mean is that H2O bends spacetime a little bit less than the three atoms individually that made it up. There's no accepted variant of QM or the Standard Model that explains this. The dynamics of spacetime curvature rearranging as the photon is emitted as the hydrogen atoms burn is not explained by modern science. This is fundamentally the "QM is incompatible with GR" issue.
My point was that it isn't just near black holes that a GR-compatible microscopic theory is relevant.
It's relevant even in the flame of a candle. It's a small effect, but it's there. The inconsistency in the theories occurs at all scales.
While you're right about the inconsistency between GR and QM applying at any level, you're wrong about needing GR to talk about the mass of the water molecule.
Even in pure QM, the water molecule will have less inertia than unbonded hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This should in principle be measurable by applying a known force to the water molecule and to the three atoms, and measuring their acceleration. The difference should perfectly match the inertial difference predicted by SR and GR.
GR adds the observation that, if the water molecule has less inertia, it should also bend space-time less, and it is this bending of space time that can't be explained by QM.
Though I should add that I've had a reply to a different comment once that explained that QM is actually compatible with the flat-ish but not perfectly flat space times that GR predicts anywhere not very close to a black hole. They were claiming that in fact modern QFTs can even predict things like the gravitational lensing produced by our sun, and that they only break down when near the event horizon of a black hole.
> Essentially, when we state that H2O has less mass than H+H+O, what we actually mean is that H2O bends spacetime a little bit less than the three atoms individually that made it up. There's no accepted variant of QM or the Standard Model that explains this.
I'm not sure this is correct. It bends spacetime less simply because it's in a lower energy state. It's correct to say that the Standard Model doesn't explain spacetime curvature, but the curvature in GR is implied by the energy which is explained.
In terms of a pure DAO though that's a weirdly nebulous distinction. Before incorporation they're nowhere legally speaking, there's not a single physical location it's operating out of.
Maybe like others have said it's mostly about otherwise extant orgs not being able to register.
I believe miners wouldn't, because while they might technically coordinate their efforts in deciding which version of a cryptocurrency to mine, they aren't pooling their resources and representing themselves as a single entity.
That's partly what makes these individuals an unincorporated organization.
Here's a link to a Q&A about the change, and the relevant explanation.
"3. Why are savings deposits being recognized on the H.6 statistical release as a transaction account? Posted: 12/17/2020
A. As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board of Governors reduced reserve requirement ratios on net transaction accounts to 0 percent, effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions and rendered the regulatory distinction between reservable “transaction accounts” and nonreservable “savings deposits” unnecessary. On April 24, 2020, the Board removed this regulatory distinction by deleting the six-per-month transfer limit on savings deposits in Regulation D. This action resulted in savings deposits having the same liquidity characteristics as the transaction accounts currently reported as “Other checkable deposits” on the H.6 statistical release.
To account for the change in their liquidity characteristics, savings deposits will be recognized as a type of transaction account on the H.6 statistical release"