Saturday, January 6, 2018

‘A Very Stable Genius.’ Donald Trump Defends His '2 Greatest Assets' on Twitter - Independent

‘A Very Stable Genius.’ Donald Trump Defends His '2 Greatest Assets' on Twitter
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC. on January 4, 2018.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC. on January 4, 2018. Alex Wong
By JILL COLVIN / AP 8:23 AM EST
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump wants people to know he’s “like, really smart” and “a very stable genius.”
He’s taking to Twitter to defend his mental fitness and boast about his intelligence.
It’s his latest pushback against a book that portrays him as a leader who doesn’t understand the weight of the presidency. In the book, former aide Steve Bannon questions Trump’s competence.
Trump’s having none of it.
@realDonaldTrump
Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.....
11:19 PM - Jan 6, 2018
@realDonaldTrump
....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....
11:27 PM - Jan 6, 2018
@realDonaldTrump
....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
11:30 PM - Jan 6, 2018
He says critics are “taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.”
Trump says “my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.”
He says going from successful businessman to reality TV star to president on his first try “would qualify as not smart, but genius …. and a very stable genius at that!”

This Cryptocurrency Inventor Has Suddenly Become One of the World’s Richest Men - TIME Business

Posted: 04 Jan 2018 12:47 PM PST

Cryptocurrency has a new king. His name is Chris Larsen, and he’s the co-founder and former CEO of Ripple, which created the digital token known as XRP. He’s now one of the world’s richest billionaires, thanks to XRP’s incredible hot streak.
XRP, a cryptocurrency intended for international transactions, has had a meteoric rise this winter. Its value went from $0.25 a coin in mid-December to $3.16 as of Wednesday, according to Coinmarketcap. It’s currently the second biggest cryptocurrency behind Bitcoin.
Forbes reports that, as a result, Larsen almost instantly became worth $37.3 billion (based on XRP’s Monday exchange rate) and as of yesterday, according to the New York Times, a whopping $59 billion. According to Forbes, he personally holds 5.19 billion XRP as well as a 17% stake in the company, where he now serves as executive chairman. Given XRP’s continued gains, that would mean he’s worth even more at the moment—though, as with anything in cryptocurrency, that could change quickly.

Larsen’s new reported net worth would make him fall somewhere between the 5th and the 16th richest person in America on Forbes’ current list, behind former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, both currently valued at $37.5 billion.
Bitcoin may grab the most headlines of any cryptocurrency, but the San Francisco-based Ripple, launched in 2012, is one to watch closely. Larsen helped start the company, whose XRP token has much more oversight than the relatively decentralized Bitcoin. Ripple itself holds 61.3 billion XRP, while only 38.7 billion have been distributed. Its users include giant banking companies like Bank of America and UBS.
And while the creator of Bitcoin remains basically unknown, Larsen is a visible, established figure. Before Ripple, he served as CEO and cofounder of Prosper, a peer-to-peer lending marketplace, and Eloan, an online platform for lending. According to his LinkedIn profile, Larsen worked on Eloan from 1992 until its acquisition in 2005 by Popular Inc., the parent company of Banco Popular. His profile also claims that Eloan helped usher in open access to credit scores by being the first company to show consumers their FICO scores.
Larsen stepped down from his CEO duties at Ripple in November 2016, giving over control to current CEO Brad Garlinghouse, who owns a 6.3% stake in the company. Larsen is also currently an adviser to Distilled Analytics, a financial modeling company and Credit Karma. In 2016, he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, making the case that banks are “like parents” — and should treat customers in a more nurturing way.
Based in San Francisco, Larsen graduated from San Francisco State University in 1984 with a bachelor’s degree in accounting and finance. In 2004, SF State named Larsen “Alum of the Year,” detailing at the time, that he owned a cafe in Berkeley and was active in helping local Buddhist organizations.
He earned his MBA from Stanford University in 1991.
Larsen’s financial knowhow and ties to the banking industry have no doubt helped Ripple and its XRP make a strong footing in the still tumultuous world of cryptocurrency.
This post has been updated with new information since its original publication.

9 psychological warning signs you should never ignore - Independent

6/12/2017
9 psychological warning signs you should never ignore
Posted by Mimi Launder in offbeat
UPVOTE
It can be hard to recognise harmful mental habits or mental health issues yourself.
You might be too busy to notice when your behaviour or thoughts start becoming a problem. But taking care of your mind is just as important as taking care of your body.
The good people of Reddit have banded together to identify some psychological red flags they think we should all be aware of.
Make endless excuses.
When a short-term situation quietly turns long-term.
Refusing a helping hand.
You are always angry.
Blaming it on the bottle.
Treating other people like mind readers.
Holding inappropriate grudges.
A constant negative outlook.
Focusing too much on the past.
If you are feeling vulnerable, upset or depressed there is always someone available to talk and help.
You can contact the Samaritans 24-hours a day for free via their website or phone line 116123
If you're LGBTQI and in need of someone to talk to, Switchboard LGBT offer advice and help every day from 10am to 10pm on their website and on 0300 330 0630
Alternatively, if you suspect a young person might be feeling suicidal, you can call Childline for help and advice on 0800 1111.

How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing? - Forbes Science

JAN 5, 2018 @ 10:00 AM 18,883 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?
Starts With A Bang The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Ethan Siegel Ethan Siegel , Contributor
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
On all scales in the Universe, from our local neighborhood to the interstellar medium to individual galaxies to clusters to filaments and the great cosmic web, everything we observe appears to be made out of normal matter and not antimatter. This is an unexplained mystery.
When you look out at the vastness of the Universe, at the planets, stars, galaxies, and all there is out there, one obvious question screams for an explanation: why is there something instead of nothing? The problem gets even worse when you consider the laws of physics governing our Universe, which appear to be completely symmetric between matter and antimatter. Yet as we look at what's out there, we find that all the stars and galaxies we see are made 100% of matter, with scarcely any antimatter at all. Clearly, we exist, as do the stars and galaxies we see, so something must have created more matter than antimatter, making the Universe we know possible. But how did it happen? It's one of the Universe's greatest mysteries, but one that we're closer than ever to solving.
NASA, modified by Wikimedia Commons user 老陳, modified further by E. Siegel
The matter and energy content in the Universe at the present time (left) and at earlier times (right). Note the presence of dark energy, dark matter, and the prevalence of normal matter over antimatter, which is so minute it does not contribute at any of the times shown.
Consider these two facts about the Universe, and how contradictory they are:
Every interaction between particles that we’ve ever observed, at all energies, has never created or destroyed a single particle of matter without also creating or destroying an equal number of antimatter particles.
When we look out at the Universe, at all the stars, galaxies, gas clouds, clusters, superclusters and largest-scale structures everywhere, everything appears to be made of matter and not antimatter.
It seems like an impossibility. On one hand, there is no known way, given the particles and their interactions in the Universe, to make more matter than antimatter. On the other hand, everything we see is definitely made of matter and not antimatter. Here's how we know.
Dmitri Pogosyan / University of Alberta
The production of matter/antimatter pairs (left) from pure energy is a completely reversible reaction (right), with matter/antimatter annihilating back to pure energy. This creation-and-annihilation process, which obeys E = mc^2, is the only known way to create and destroy matter or antimatter.
Whenever and wherever antimatter and matter meet in the Universe, there’s a fantastic outburst of energy due to particle-antiparticle annihilation. We actually observe this annihilation in some locations, but only around hyper-energetic sources that produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, like around massive black holes. When the antimatter runs into matter in the Universe, it produces gamma rays of very specific frequencies, which we can then detect. The interstellar and intergalactic medium is full of material, and the complete lack of these gamma rays is a strong signal that there aren't large amounts of antimatter particles flying around anywhere, since that matter/antimatter signature would show up.
Gary Steigman, 2008, via http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1122
Whether in clusters, galaxies, our own stellar neighborhood or our Solar System, we have tremendous, powerful limits on the fraction of antimatter in the Universe. There can be no doubt: everything in the Universe is matter-dominated.
In our own galaxy’s interstellar medium, the mean lifetime would be on the order of about 300 years, which is tiny compared to the age of our galaxy! This constraint tells us that, at least within the Milky Way, the amount of antimatter that’s allowed to be mixed in with the matter we observe is at most 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000! On larger scales — of galaxies and galaxy clusters, for example — the constraints are less stringent but still very strong. With observations spanning from just a few million light-years away to over three billion light-years distant, we’ve observed a dearth of the X-rays and gamma rays we’d expect from matter-antimatter annihilation. What we’ve seen is that even on large, cosmological scales, 99.999%+ of what exists in our Universe is definitely matter (like us) and not antimatter.
ESO
This is the reflection nebula IC 2631, as imaged by the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope. Whether within our own galaxy or between galaxies, there is simply no evidence of the gamma-ray signatures that would need to exist if there were significant pockets, stars, or galaxies made out of antimatter.
So somehow, even though we aren't entirely sure how, we had to have created more matter than antimatter in the Universe's past. Which is made even more confusing by the fact that the symmetry between matter and antimatter, in terms of particle physics, is even more explicit than you might think. For example:
every time we create a quark, we also create an antiquark,
every time a quark is destroyed, an antiquark is also destroyed,
every time we create-or-destroy a lepton, we also create-or-destroy an antilepton from the same lepton family, and
every time a quark-or-lepton experiences an interaction, collision or decay, the total net number of quarks and leptons at the end of the reaction (quarks minus antiquarks, leptons minus antileptons) is the same at the end as it was at the beginning.
The only way we’ve ever made more (or less) matter in the Universe has been to also make more (or less) antimatter in an equal amount.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
The particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model obey all sorts of conservation laws, but there are slight differences between the behavior of certain particle/antiparticle pairs that may be hints of the origin of baryogenesis.
But we know that it must be possible; the only question is how it happened. In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:
The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.
It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.
There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.
The first one is easy, because an expanding, cooling Universe with unstable particles (and/or antiparticles) in it is, by definition, out of equilibrium. The second one is easy, too, since "C" symmetry (replacing particles with antiparticles) and "CP" symmetry (replacing particles with mirror-reflected antiparticles) are both violated in the weak interactions.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
A normal meson spins counterclockwise about its North Pole and then decays with an electron being emitted along the direction of the North Pole. Applying C-symmetry replaces the particles with antiparticles, which means we should have an antimeson spinning counterclockwise about its North Pole decay by emitting a positron in the North direction. Similarly, P-symmetry flips what we see in a mirror. If particles and antiparticles do not behave exactly the same under C, P, or CP symmetries, that symmetry is said to be violated. Thus far, only the weak interaction violates any of the three.
That leaves the question of how to violate baryon number. In the Standard Model of particle physics, despite the observed conservation of baryon number, there isn't an explicit conservation law for either that or lepton number (where a lepton is a particle like an electron or a neutrino). Instead, it's only the difference between baryons and leptons, B - L, that's conserved. So under the right circumstances, you can not only make extra protons, you can make the electrons you need to go with them.
What those circumstances are is still a mystery, however. In the early stages of the Universe, we fully expect equal amounts of matter and antimatter to exist, with very high speeds and energies.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
At the high temperatures achieved in the very young Universe, not only can particles and photons be spontaneously created, given enough energy, but also antiparticles and unstable particles as well, resulting in a primordial particle-and-antiparticle soup.
As the Universe expands and cools, unstable particles, once created in great abundance, will decay. If the right conditions are met, they can lead to an excess of matter over antimatter, even where there was none initially. There three leading possibilities for how this excess of matter over antimatter could have emerged:
New physics at the electroweak scale could greatly enhances the amount of C- and CP-violation in the Universe, leading to an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Sphaleron interactions, which violate B and L individually (but conserve B - L) can then generate the right amounts of baryons and leptons. This could occur either without supersymmetry or with supersymmetry, depending on the mechanism.
New neutrino physics at high energies, of which we have a tremendous hint, could create a fundamental lepton asymmetry early on: leptogenesis. The sphalerons, which conserve B - L, would then use that lepton asymmetry to generate a baryon asymmetry.
Or GUT-scale baryogenesis, where new physics (and new particles) are found to exist at the grand unification scale, where the electroweak force unifies with the strong force.
These scenarios all have some elements in common, so let's walk through the last one, just as an example, to see what could have happened.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
In addition to the other particles in the Universe, if the idea of a Grand Unified Theory applies to our Universe, there will be additional super-heavy bosons, X and Y particles, along with their antiparticles, shown with their appropriate charges amidst the hot sea of other particles in the early Universe.
If grand unification is true, then there ought to be new, super-heavy particles, called X and Y, which have both baryon-like and lepton-like properties. There also ought to be their antimatter counterparts: anti-X and anti-Y, with the opposite B - L numbers and the opposite charges, but the same mass and lifetime. These particle-antiparticle pairs can be created in great abundance at high enough energies, and then will decay at later times.
So your Universe can be filled with them, and then they'll decay. If you have C- and CP-violation, however, then it's possible that there are slight differences between how the particles and antiparticles (X/Y vs. anti-X/anti-Y) decay.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
If we allow X and Y particles to decay into the quarks and lepton combinations shown, their antiparticle counterparts will decay into the respective antiparticle combinations. But if CP is violated, the decay pathways — or the percentage of particles decaying one way versus another — can be different for the X and Y particles compared to the anti-X and anti-Y particles, resulting in a net production of baryons over antibaryons and leptons over antileptons.
If your X-particle has two pathways: decaying into two up quarks or an anti-down quark and a positron, then the anti-X has to have two corresponding pathways: two anti-up quarks or a down quark and an electron. Notice that the X has B - L of two-thirds in both cases, while the anti-X has negative two-thirds. It's similar for the Y/anti-Y particles. But there is one important difference that's allowed with C- and CP-violation: the X could be more likely to decay into two up quarks than the anti-X is to decay into two anti-up quarks, while the anti-X could be more likely to decay into a down quark and an electron than the X is to decay into an anti-down quark and a positron.
If you have enough X/anti-X and Y/anti-Y pairs, and they decay in this allowed fashion, you can easily make an excess of baryons over antibaryons (and leptons over anti-leptons) where there was none previously.
E. Siegel / Beyond The Galaxy
If the particles decayed away according to the mechanism described above, we would be left with an excess of quarks over antiquarks (and leptons over antileptons) after all the unstable, superheavy particles decayed away. After the excess particle–antiparticle pairs annihilated away (matched up with dotted red lines), we would be
left with an excess of up-and-down quarks, which compose protons and neutrons in combinations of up–up–down and up–down–down, respectively, and electrons, which will match the protons in number.
In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.
The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer. This century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.
Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.

Russia berates the US for calling UN Security Council meeting over protests in Iran that have left at least 21 dead - Daily Mail

6/1/2018
Russia berates the US for calling UN Security Council meeting over protests in Iran that have left at least 21 dead
Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia criticizes 'flawed U.S. logic' over the meeting
He asked why the SC has not also met to discuss 2014 violence in Missouri
But the U.S. says that Iran needed to be put on notice over recent violence
At least 21 people have been killed in recent anti-government protests
By Alastair Tancred and Ap
PUBLISHED: 21:30 AEDT, 6 January 2018 |
Russia and Iran have both strongly criticized the U.S. for calling a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Friday to discuss recent protests in Iran which have killed at least 21 people.
Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia said involving the Council was wrong because what was happening in Iran was an 'internal affair' which undermined the reputation of the U.N.'s top body.
Mr Nebenzia argued that if American logic on the issue was to be followed, a Security Council meeting should also have been convened after the 2014 killing of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya, left, speaks to American Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley before Friday's Security Council meeting on Iran
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya, left, speaks to American Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley before Friday's Security Council meeting on Iran
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was scathing of the US move to convene the meeting on twitter
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was scathing of the US move to convene the meeting on twitter
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said the emergency session put Iran on notice that 'the world will be watching' its actions
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said the emergency session put Iran on notice that 'the world will be watching' its actions
The anti-government protests began at the end of December, fueled by spiraling food prices and soaring unemployment
The anti-government protests began at the end of December, fueled by spiraling food prices and soaring unemployment
Thousands of Iranians took part in pro-government rallies in several cities earlier this week in a state-sponsored show of force aimed at countering the outpouring of dissent
Thousands of Iranians took part in pro-government rallies in several cities earlier this week in a state-sponsored show of force aimed at countering the outpouring of dissent
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter after the meeting that the Security Council 'rebuffed the U.S.' naked attempt to hijack its mandate.'
He said the majority on the Council emphasized the need to fully implement the 2015 nuclear deal and to refrain from interfering in the affairs of other countries.
'Another FP (foreign policy) blunder for the Trump administration,' he wrote.
The Iranian envoy at the meeting, Gholamali Khoshroo, said that the U.S. had 'lost every shred of moral, political and legal authority and credibility in the eyes of the whole world'.
France was also critical of the move to convene the meeting, pointing out that any interference in Iran's affairs would be counter-productive.
Ambassador François Delattre said that while the recent protests were of concern, they hardly undermined international peace and security.
Mr Delattre said the international community should instead concentrate on fully implementing the nuclear agreement with Iran - which the Trump administration has refused to endorse.
But U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said the emergency session put Iran on notice that 'the world will be watching' its actions.
Her call for the emergency meeting surprised Security Council members and she had to overcome Russian opposition to get it - the U.S. required the backing of at last nine of the Council's 15 members for it to have gone ahead.
Ms Haley said that her country stood 'unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves, prosperity for their families and dignity for their nation'.
Iranian army chief offers to send in troops to deal with...
Iran protests: EU treads carefully as Trump lashes out
She said that 'no dishonest attempt to call the protesters puppets of foreign powers' would deter the US from speaking out.
Protests began in Mashhad, Iran's second largest city, on 28 December and spread to several other cities and towns. The demonstrations were triggered by a rise in food prices and soaring unemployment.
Some demonstrators even called for the government's overthrow.
Hundreds of people were arrested in addition to those killed.
Large pro-government rallies have been held in response, with officials blaming the anti-government unrest on foreign meddling.