@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted Yeah, it could.
But you can't assert that it WILL from that. It's circular.

@MalwareTechBlog@raydecated是的，可以。
但你不能断言它会从中受益。它是圆形的。

@JeromeAdamsMD @HilNorth If so, at a private party, you're correct! (And I apologize for getting it wrong!)
I, and I think others at the thread, though you were at the game. Different issue.

@JeromeAdamsMD@hilnoth如果是这样，在私人聚会上，你是对的！（我很抱歉弄错了！）
一、 我认为其他人也在线程中，尽管你也在游戏中。不同的问题。

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted I borrow $1, buy Bitcoin -> price of Bitcoin goes up, seller deposits $1
Another $1 can be lent out (current reserve ratio is 0%, thank the Fed), so I borrow it (using my newly appreciated BTC as collateral), buy more Bitcoin.
Repeat.

@MalwareTechBlog@rayedcated我借1美元，买比特币->；比特币价格上涨，卖家存款1美元
另外1美元可以借出（目前的存款准备金率是0%，感谢美联储），所以我借了它（用我新升值的BTC作为抵押品），买更多比特币。
重复

@raoulkountz @EricTopol @sharkbiotech Most of the passes I've seen can just be looked at, you don't NEED a reader.

@raoulkountz@EricTopol@sharkbiotech我看过的大部分传球都可以看，你不需要阅读。

@raoulkountz @meander_with_me @EricTopol @sharkbiotech If you've bought a car in the last several years there is a good chance it has a tracking device in it.

@raoulkountz@meander_with_me@EricTopol@sharkbiotech如果你在过去几年里买了一辆车，很有可能车里有跟踪装置。

@EricTopol Important to address unintended consequences. Will giving "credit" to prior confirmed covid encourage deliberate infection by those reluctant to take a vax. Will enacting such a policy cause net harm?

@EricTopol对于解决意外后果非常重要。对先前确诊的新冠病毒给予“认可”会鼓励那些不愿意服用vax的人故意感染吗。制定这样的政策会造成净伤害吗？

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted Money is created through lending, not directly by the Fed. The same money can be lent and relent multiple (potentially infinite) times.

@MalwareTechBlog@rayedcated Money是通过贷款而不是直接由美联储创造的。同一笔钱可以多次（可能无限次）放贷和再贷款。

@JeromeAdamsMD @HilNorth It's not 'an option' (except due to lack of enforcement). Stadium, state, and county rules all require it.
You could be forgiven from not realizing this if you based your understanding of the local mask rules by the behavior of those around you.

@JeromeAdamsMD@hilnoth这不是一个“选项”（除非缺乏强制执行）。体育场、州和县的规定都要求这样做。
如果你根据周围人的行为来理解当地的口罩规则，你就可以原谅自己没有意识到这一点。

@HilNorth @JeromeAdamsMD Due to lack of enforcement, sure.
I'm surprised to see a well known public health leader suggest by behavior to ignore state and local health department rules even if not enforced at that moment.

@Hilnoth@JeromeAdamsMD由于缺乏执法，当然。
我很惊讶地看到，一位著名的公共卫生领导人通过行为建议无视州和地方卫生部门的规定，即使当时没有执行。

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted This doesn't literally require the federal reserve to "print money". That's not how this works. Leverage creates new spending power without literal printing.

@MalwareTechBlog@raydeded这并不需要美联储“印钞”。这不是怎么回事。杠杆创造了新的消费能力，而无需文字印刷。

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted Not for that purpose. But does the purpose matter?
We'll see if ZIRP ever ends and rates can actually be raised.
Also, infinite leverage can produce infinite price. 0% (or neg) interest rates means infinite leverage can be costless. It's odd, yes. ZIRP wasn't my idea.

@MalwareTechBlog@raydred并非出于此目的。但目的重要吗？
我们会看看ZIRP是否会结束，利率是否会提高。
此外，无限的杠杆作用可以产生无限的价格。0%（或负）的利率意味着无限的杠杆可以是无成本的。这很奇怪，是的。ZIRP不是我的主意。

@aschiff @KazemiAlex Rate of change from 7 days previous is often illuminating.

@aschiff@KazemiAlex与前7天相比的变化率通常具有启发性。

@RayRedacted Or too big to grow.

@光线照过或太大而无法生长。

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted Well, see ZIRP or even negative.

@MalwareTechBlog@raydreded表现得很好，请参见ZIRP，甚至是负片。

@james1chas3 @JudahWorldChamp @CDCgov Yeah, I see. It's true its a smaller issue but I don't see anything wrong with trying to help. Don't need to be completely one tracked. If CDC would stop causing harm re. covid, that alone would be an improvement.

@james1chas3@JudahWorldChamp@CDCgov是的，我明白了。的确，这是一个小问题，但我不认为尝试帮助有什么错。不需要被完全跟踪。如果CDC停止造成伤害。新冠病毒，这本身就是一个进步。

@james1chas3 @JudahWorldChamp @CDCgov It's a good point and that was kind of my point. CDC trying to help people not get sick from food is way less bad than the terrible and inconsistent advice it has given which helped people get sick from covid.

@james1chas3@JudahWorldChamp@CDCgov这是一个很好的观点，这也是我的观点。CDC试图帮助人们不因食物而生病，这比它给出的帮助人们因新冠病毒而生病的可怕且前后矛盾的建议要糟糕得多。

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted That's implausible. With a billion hodlers, some will buy more. You can really only have no buyers if you have no believers.

@MalwareTechBlog@raydreded这是难以置信的。有了10亿淘气者，一些人会购买更多。只有当你没有信徒时，你才能真正没有买家。

@MalwareTechBlog @RayRedacted This isn't true with increasing leverage.

@MalwareTechBlog@raydeded指出，随着杠杆率的增加，情况并非如此。

@JeromeAdamsMD @HilNorth Is it okay to disregard legal requirements of state and local health departments if you have done your own research and think you know better? Is that applicable to regular people too?

@JeromeAdamsMD@hilnoth如果你已经做了自己的研究并且认为自己知道得更好，那么无视州和地方卫生部门的法律要求可以吗？这也适用于普通人吗？

@JudahWorldChamp @CDCgov Is that better or worse than the CDC telling people not to use N95s for covid while at the same time a different part of the CDC was tweeting that people should use N95s for wildfires? Yes, this happened.

@JudahWorldChamp@CDCgov这比疾控中心告诉人们不要使用N95s治疗新冠肺炎，而疾控中心的另一个部门则在推特上呼吁人们应该使用N95s治疗野火好还是坏？是的，这是真的。