What if you lost a whole lot of money? Can you imagine the horror and desperation you’d feel? Well‚ the US government has lost $21 trillion‚ and they don’t seem to care. But the rest of us have to care about our own budgets. Planning to save money is at the top of Statista’s list of 2024 New Year’s Resolutions. In the past‚ resolutions like losing weight and eating healthy foods have been more popular‚ but times are changing.  The inflation that’s making average Americans so miserable right now was preventable.  Many of us knew‚ once the Federal Reserve started printing money during Covid that at some point‚ we would all have to pay. And now those bills are now coming due.  While the situation reveals terrible leadership at the top of American society‚ the Americans attempting to improve their financial literacy deserve commendation. (If you are trying to live more frugally‚ check out our sister site‚ The Frugalite. and Daisy’s book‚ The Ultimate Guide to Frugal Living.) But what about our political class? Are the Americans responsible for the money flow at the national level trying to get their financial house in order‚ too? It looks unlikely.  As we mentioned in a previous article‚ Congress hasn’t passed a budget with no government shutdowns and no continuing resolutions since 1997‚ Think about what you were doing in 1997.  I was in high school. That was a generation ago.  We’ve had a full generation of a Congress that cannot get its financial house in order. And worse‚ almost no Congressional members pretend to try. Is this incompetence?  I’m sure a lot of it is.  Yet the problems are too deep to blame solely on that.  For example‚ the government “lost” $21 trillion recently. In 2018‚ Michigan State University Economics Professor Mark Skidmore and former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Catherine Austin Fitts issued a report showing that‚ after combing through official databases of government budgets‚ there was $21 trillion unaccounted for. Mainstream sources were quick to point out that the Pentagon has never had $21 trillion to spend. That ridiculously huge figure probably came from sums of money being accidentally double- and triple-counted. However‚ the enormous sum of missing money did spark the Pentagon’s first-ever audit in 2018.  Congress had required every department to audit itself since 1990‚ but the Pentagon‚ 28 years after the fact‚ was the last department to get around to it.  And they did not pass it. In fact‚ in 2023‚ the Pentagon failed its sixth audit in a row. Politicians such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez have focused on the Pentagon misplacing $21 trillion‚ but that’s not fair.  As Professor Skidmore and Austin Fitts have repeatedly pointed out in a variety of articles and interviews‚ some of that $21 trillion also came from HUD.   Furthermore‚ just because those departments had sums of money earmarked for them doesn’t mean anyone in those departments actually handled it.  Skidmore and Austin Fitts have repeatedly referred to this as a federal government problem‚ not just a Pentagon or HUD problem. Austin Fitts would know. George Bush appointed her as the assistant secretary of HUD in 1989.  Austin Fitts had been a successful investment banker‚ the first female Managing Director in Dillon Read’s 150-year history.  After becoming Bush’s assistant HUD secretary‚ she took on the responsibility of cleaning up an agency losing $11 million a day‚ mostly due to fraud. There are two sets of books. After Skidmore and Austin Fitts’ report went public in 2018‚ the response of the Federal Accounting Statement Advisory Board was not to insist on further transparency‚ as described by Professor Skidmore to James Corbett in his interview.   Instead‚ the Federal Accounting Statement Advisory Board recommended allowing a small group of people to rewrite the balance sheets to allocate money as needed for national security. What this means is that there are two sets of books.  One‚ the information available to the public is only loosely connected with real transactions. The second set of books‚ the real one‚ is kept by that small number of people who determine what is relevant to national security and funnel money where they see fit.   In case this sounds far-fetched‚ I encourage you to explore the “Missing Money” videos on Solari.com.  There is a short 5:30-minute summary here or an in-depth hour-and-a-half-long video here.  Austin Fitts has been extensively documenting this issue since 2000.   What’s missing ($21 trillion) is almost as much as the national debt. $21 trillion is a staggering sum of money‚ almost as much as the official national debt.  How and why would it disappear? Via Austin Fitts’ Solari Report‚ there appear to be at least five possibilities: The missing money was spent appropriately‚ but the existing accounting infrastructure is incapable of tracking it. The money was “wasted‚” i.e.‚ spent unwisely. The money was directed into black projects and Special Access Programs in massive amounts outside the Constitutional appropriations‚ and therefore‚ without the knowledge of Congress and the citizenry‚ for purposes unknown. The money was used to manipulate markets to maintain the reserve status of the dollar. The money is being stolen by fraud and collusion between government and private interests. Gauging which of these is most likely far outside my pay grade.  I’m just an average woman who has spent most of her life on a shoestring budget. And that’s the real issue. The average American cannot print herself money.  If an average citizen feels that she has to purchase a gun because of increasing crime in her neighborhood‚ that means forgoing some other item she could have spent that home defense money on.  No one gets everything all at once.  Making those judgment calls is part of being an adult‚ and the Founding Fathers understood that. In fact‚ it’s written in the Constitution.  Article 1‚ Section 9‚ Clause 7 states that: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury‚ but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The lack of financial accountability within the federal government is more than an embarrassment. It’s a reflection of how far the federal government has removed itself from the principles of the Founding Fathers. Does this mean the Constitution should change? What of the belief that we’re two and a half centuries past the time of the Founding Fathers and that the Constitution needs to change with the times? First‚ morality doesn’t change‚ and the Founding Fathers understood that.  They knew that any society needs a set of cultural norms to function.  John Adams famously said‚ “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Most religions have had admonitions against lying and stealing.  In C.S. Lewis’s classic short work The Abolition of Man‚ his Appendix “Illustrations of the Tao” cites dozens of examples from a variety of ancient cultures going back almost four thousand years regarding the importance of honesty and forthrightness.   Second‚ if we Americans do not stick to the principles of the Constitution‚ what do we have? We’re a diverse nation‚ not united by race or religion.  Up until fairly recently‚ what united us was our pride in and love of the Constitution.   If it feels like society is coming apart‚ it is.  Much of this has to do with the fact that we are governed by people who think the limitations set forth in the Constitution no longer apply to them. We can only control our own accountability. Most of us can’t control the total lack of accountability within the federal government.  We only have limited control over our own finances.  But that shouldn’t stop us from doing what we can to improve our situation.   If you’re one of those people whose New Year’s resolution is to save money‚ I salute you.  I am doing the same.  Let us bear in mind that true generational wealth comes in more forms than dollars. It comes in commodities‚ skills‚ and‚ above all‚ trusted networks of family and friends.   What are your thoughts? What do you think happened to the missing $21 trillion? What do you think it would take to make the government financially accountable?  Are you working on your finances in 2024? Do you have any financial New Year’s Resolutions? Let’s discuss it in the comments section. About Marie Hawthorne A lover of novels and cultivator of superb apple pie recipes‚ Marie spends her free time writing about the world around her. The post We Have to Budget‚ But the US Government Doesn’t. They “Lost” $21 Trillion. appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

Two Dalmatians proved that dogs are really man's best friend after fighting off four coyotes to protect their dog walker in Boston.

Calculating the Cost of Asylum Seekers

New analysis of the busiest areas of the world’s oceans has revealed that we know much less about what’s going on out there than you might think. The 2‚000 terabytes of satellite data revealed that around three-quarters of industrial fishing vessels‚ and up to 30 percent of transport and energy vessels‚ are not publicly tracked‚ leaving us with a huge blind spot when it comes to human activity at sea.The oceans are a vital resource for humanity‚ with over a billion people relying on them as a primary food source. Even now‚ over a century on from the peak of the Age of Sail‚ we still ship around 80 percent of all traded goods‚ and almost 30 percent of the world’s oil is produced offshore. Given its importance to us‚ and the increasing calls for action to protect the planet’s waterways‚ you might think we’d have a firm handle on what all that shipping traffic is doing. According to a new study‚ however‚ a large number of vessels have been flying under the radar.“A new industrial revolution has been emerging in our seas undetected – until now‚” said co-lead author David Kroodsma‚ director of research and innovation at Global Fishing Watch‚ in a statement. “On land‚ we have detailed maps of almost every road and building on the planet. In contrast‚ growth in our ocean has been largely hidden from public view. This study helps eliminate the blind spots and shed light on the breadth and intensity of human activity at sea.”The study collated satellite imagery and GPS data from 2017-2021‚ using deep-learning models to classify seagoing objects with over 97 percent accuracy. The team mapped their findings in a series of incredible visualizations that offer what they call an “unprecedented view” of industrial activity in the ocean.The majority of fishing vessels identified from the data are not being publicly tracked.Image credit: © 2023 Global Fishing WatchAt any given time during the analysis‚ an average of 63‚000 vessels could be detected. Almost half of these were fishing vessels‚ and the team discovered that 72 to 76 percent of these were not being monitored by any public tracking system. The majority of these‚ as you can see in the map above‚ operate around Africa and South Asia.“With our freely available dataset and technology‚” the authors write‚ “hotspots of potentially illegal activity can now be shown and industrial fishing vessels can be identified that are encroaching on artisanal fishing grounds or other countries’ [exclusive economic zones].”Illegal fishing poses a threat to food stocks‚ and also runs the risk of unmanaged bycatch of threatened marine species. Being able to track fishing traffic with a greater degree of accuracy can only help to combat this problem.About 25 percent of vessels involved in transport and energy are missing from the public trackers.Image credit: © 2023 Global Fishing WatchIn addition to the “dark” fishing vessels‚ around a quarter of transport and energy vessels were found to be similarly untracked. Vessels are not required to broadcast their coordinates‚ so there’s no suggestion that the only reason why a vessel would go “dark” is because it is doing something illegal – but couple this with the fact that details of offshore infrastructure projects are often kept quiet‚ and you reach the situation in which we currently find ourselves. That’s what Global Fishing Watch is looking to change by making their data publicly available. The data focused on the areas of the planet where most industrial activity takes place‚ mapping important offshore projects like wind turbines.Image credit: © 2023 Global Fishing Watch“The footprint of the Anthropocene is no longer limited to terra firma‚” said co-author Patrick Halpin‚ professor of marine geospatial ecology at Duke University. “Having a more complete view of ocean industrialization allows us to see new growth in offshore wind‚ aquaculture and mining that is rapidly being added to established industrial fishing‚ shipping and oil and gas activities.”“This study marks the beginning of a new era in ocean management and transparency‚” added Kroodsma.The study is published in Nature. 

Ever wondered why the people at Google spend so much time trying to calculate eleventy-billion digits of pi? Why a number like one third can be so simple to write as a fraction‚ but impossible to jot down in decimal form? Or why there’s a number that’s literally just called “e”?Well‚ we have the answers – but be careful: things are going to get a little bit irrational.What are irrational numbers?Whether or not you’ve heard the term “irrational numbers”‚ you’ll almost certainly know some examples already. Pi‚ for example‚ is probably the most famous of all: the ratio between a circle’s diameter and its circumference. Then there’s e – not the letter‚ but the number‚ seen pretty much anywhere where people are measuring growth or decay‚ writing down the most beautiful thing possible‚ or (appropriately enough) becoming deranged.The square root of two‚ aka √2‚ is irrational too‚ as is its sort-of (we’ll get to that) neighbor √3. The square root of four‚ however‚ definitely isn’t. An infinite decimal expansion of any number – 0.111…‚ 0.222…‚ 0.333…‚ etc – none of those are irrational. But 0.123456789101112…? So irrational.How do we know? Well‚ irrational numbers – and their opposites‚ the rational numbers – are distinguished by just one property: can they be written as a ratio of two whole numbers?“The most simple numbers we know are just the whole numbers: one‚ two‚ three‚ four‚ and so on‚” explains number theorist (and Fields medal winner!) James Maynard in a 2019 video for Numberphile.“Slightly more complicated [are the] rational numbers‚ which are just ratios or fractions of whole numbers‚” he continues. “So‚ one half‚ one third‚ two thirds…”Given this explanation‚ you may not be surprised to learn that an irrational number‚ then‚ is one that can not be written as a fraction of two whole numbers. Take pi‚ for example: there’s a chance you may have seen it expressed as the number 3.14‚ or if you’re feeling particularly Archimedean‚ the fraction 22/7. Neither of those are accurate‚ though – in fact‚ there’s only one way to write the value of pi exactly‚ and it’s like this: π.“We’ve proven that you can’t write it as just a ratio of two whole numbers‚” Maynard says. “And in fact[…] in many ways most numbers can’t be written as just a ratio of two whole numbers.”What do irrational numbers look like?So now we know what irrational numbers are – and what they’re not – how do we go about spotting them in the wild?Well‚ a good clue is when – like pi‚ e‚ phi‚ tau‚ and so many others – they aren’t written using numbers‚ but letters (albeit quite often Greek ones). That’s not always the case though: physical constants are often denoted the same way‚ and they can’t be irrational‚ since they come from nature‚ rather than logic.Another tell-tale sign that a number might be irrational is when its decimal expansion is followed by a dot-dot-dot. “What [an] expression [like 3.14159…] is saying is: I have lots of different approximations to the number pi‚ which get more and more accurate‚” Maynard says. “So maybe a first approximation is that pi is roughly equal to three‚ and then a second approximation is pi is approximately equal to 3.1‚ which is 31/10‚ and then a better approximation is that pi is approximately equal to 314/100‚ 3.14‚ and so on‚” he explains. “This is really what we mean by an irrational number; we can’t just uniquely define it in a very easy way typically‚ but we can define it by the sequence of simple approximations.”But again‚ this is far from foolproof. Any decimal expansion with a repeating pattern‚ for example‚ is rational: 0.333… is equal to 1/3‚ so it’s rational; 0.857142857142857142… is equal to 6/7‚ so it’s rational; 1.982456140350877192982456140350877192982456140350877192 – it repeats every 18 digits‚ if you can’t find it – is equal to 113/57‚ so again‚ it’s rational. Square roots are often irrational – in fact the square root of any prime number is proven to be so – as are most general roots. Obviously‚ again‚ this is not always true: the square root of any square number is rational‚ for example‚ as is the nth root of any nth power.And then there’s the handful of seemingly random examples that mathematicians have picked up along the way – many of which have very specific notation that comes directly from how they were designed in the first place. But the vast‚ vast majority of irrational numbers don’t have any particular notation to distinguish them – so the only way to know for sure whether they’re irrational or not is to prove it with your bare hands. That’s pretty difficult‚ which is why some numbers out there that you’d really think must be irrational are technically still up for debate.But why wouldn’t we bother giving them all handy names‚ like pi? Well…How many irrational numbers are there?All infinities are infinite – but some infinities are bigger than others. And unfortunately for anybody setting out to list all the irrational numbers‚ there are… well‚ there are literally too many of them to count.“Everyone understands – or pretends to understand – the distinction between being finite and being infinite‚” says Justin Moore‚ a math professor at Cornell‚ in Quanta Magazine’s The Joy of Why podcast. “[But] for an infinite set‚ you can make further distinctions. You can distinguish between it being what’s called countable and then what’s called being uncountable.”For those who haven’t studied math past high school‚ the name might be misleading – after all‚ how can something infinite be “countable”? But the term “just means that you can assign a natural number to each element of the set so that no natural number gets used twice‚” Moore explains. “So the natural numbers [that is‚ whole positive numbers] are obviously countable because they count themselves.”But what about the rational and irrational numbers? At first glance‚ it seems obvious that there are more rational numbers than natural numbers – after all‚ you have an infinite number of potential numerators‚ and for each one of those‚ an infinite number of denominators too! But here’s the surprising thing: the two sets – natural numbers and rational numbers – are actually the same size.“That’s actually pretty easy to see when you‚ when you think about it‚” Moore says‚ “because you can just list all fractions with denominator 1 – or numerator and denominator absolute value at most 1. And then‚ at most 2‚ at most 3‚ at most 4. And at each stage‚ there are only finitely many fractions where the numerator and denominator are at least in magnitude at most n. And then you can exhaust all of the rationals that way.”But irrational numbers? Well‚ that’s a different story: “the real numbers‚ the set of decimal numbers‚ are uncountable‚” Moore explains. “If you hand to me a list‚ a purported list of all the elements on [the number line]‚ there’s a procedure called the diagonal argument‚ which allows you to produce a new point that’s on the line‚ but not on your list.”What does this mean‚ in practice? Basically‚ when you’re looking at the number line and wondering “what percentage of that is irrational numbers?” the answer is‚ for all intents and purposes‚ 100 percent. The fact that literally infinitely many points along it are rational doesn’t really matter – there are still so many more irrational numbers there that‚ in the grand scheme of things‚ the rationals may as well not be there at all.Why should I care about irrational numbers?If this is all sounding a bit abstract and pointless‚ then – well‚ welcome to pure math. But just because we’ll never be able to write down the exact value of some irrational number using digits‚ that doesn’t mean they’re not important: “pi for example was historically very important for engineers to do certain bits of architecture‚” Maynard points out‚ “and they needed to know it to a certain level of precision.”So‚ what do we do? “To a given number position you can just approximate it by some rational number‚” he explains. And you’d be surprised at just how few digits you need to know: NASA never goes above 15 decimal places for pi‚ for example‚ even when they’re calculating the intricacies of interplanetary navigation. In fact‚ even to measure the size of the entire known universe at an accuracy equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom‚ you’d only need the first 38 digits of the constant.Why‚ then‚ you might ask‚ do we in fact know the value of pi to some 100 trillion digits? Honestly‚ the answer is… because we can. “It’s a computational challenge‚” David Harvey‚ an associate professor at the University of New South Wales‚ told The Guardian. “It is a really seriously difficult thing to do‚ and it involves lots of mathematics and these days computer science.”“You do pi because everyone else has been doing pi‚” he added. But as we’ve seen‚ the dessert-sounding constant is just one wave in an infinite sea of irrationality – maybe it’s time for those computer scientists to turn their attention to some of the less loved numbers out there.“There’s plenty of other interesting constants in mathematics‚” Harvey pointed out. “If you’re into chaos theory there’s Feigenbaum constants‚ if you’re into analytic number theory there’s Euler’s gamma constant… [there’s] e‚ the natural logarithm base‚ you could calculate the square root of 2. Why… do pi?”All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. 

The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between the expectation that intelligent life should be common in the Universe and the lack of any evidence for it. One possible solution to this puzzle is the zoo hypothesis‚ which proposes that extraterrestrial civilizations exist but are deliberately hiding from us‚ perhaps to avoid interfering with our development or to observe us as part of a cosmic experiment. The zoo hypothesis was first suggested by John Ball in 1973‚ who argued that any sufficiently advanced civilization would have the ability to conceal its presence from less advanced ones‚ and that this might be a common ethical or practical choice among such civilizations. He wrote: “They are content to leave us alone‚ perhaps until we reach some level of maturity or technology at which point they will reveal themselves to us”. There are several possible reasons why an alien civilization might choose to adopt the zoo hypothesis. One is the prime directive‚ a concept popularized by the science fiction series Star Trek‚ which states that no interference should be made with the natural evolution of other cultures or societies. Another is the precautionary principle‚ which suggests that any contact with an unknown civilization might have unpredictable and potentially harmful consequences‚ both for them and for us. A third is the scientific curiosity‚ which implies that observing a civilization without influencing it might provide valuable insights into its history‚ culture‚ psychology‚ and biology. However‚ there are also several problems and challenges with the zoo hypothesis. One is the coordination problem‚ which asks how multiple alien civilizations could agree on a common policy of hiding from us‚ and how they could enforce it among themselves. Another is the motivation problem‚ which questions why an alien civilization would care about us at all‚ and why they would not have any interest in communicating or interacting with us. A third is the leakage problem‚ which points out that hiding from us might not be easy or foolproof‚ and that there might be signs of their existence or activities that we could detect with our current or future technology. One way to test the zoo hypothesis is to look for such signs of leakage‚ such as artificial radio signals‚ megastructures‚ spacecrafts‚ probes‚ or artifacts. This is the main goal of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)‚ which has been scanning the sky for decades without success. However‚ this does not necessarily mean that the zoo hypothesis is false‚ as it might be possible that alien civilizations are using more advanced or stealthy methods of communication or engineering that we cannot detect or recognize. An additional way to test the zoo hypothesis is to try to break out of it‚ by sending messages or signals that might attract their attention or provoke their response. This is the main idea behind METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence)‚ which has been sending intentional transmissions to nearby stars since 1974. But this approach is controversial and risky‚ as it might expose us to hostile or harmful aliens‚ or violate their rules or preferences. The zoo hypothesis is one of the most plausible solutions to the Fermi paradox‚ but it is also one of the most difficult and uncertain to verify. It implies that we are not alone in the Universe‚ but we are isolated and ignorant of it. The only way to find out if it is true or not is to keep exploring and searching for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence‚ either by looking for signs of their presence or by trying to contact them directly. The post The Zoo Hypothesis or Nothing: A Possible Solution to the Fermi Paradox appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Moon bear According to Animals Asia‚ the Asiatic black bear‚ commonly known as the moon bear‚ stands out as the most playful among bear species but faces severe exploitation. Often overlooked‚ these bears showcase their playful nature in reserves. They usually enjoy games like wrestling matches and interacting with logs‚ swings‚ and swimming pools. They... The post Best bear friends reunite after 20 long years in captivity appeared first on Animal Channel.

Nexon‚ the owner of 2023 hits The Finals and Dave the Diver‚ has been hit with a large fine for breaching South Korea's Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce. Continue reading The Finals and Dave the Diver’s Nexon fined $8.9m over gacha mechanics MORE FROM PCGAMESN: The Finals settings‚ The Finals servers‚ The Finals classes

If Starfield space battles leave you cold‚ or you’ve ever wished Diablo 4 had a more intergalactic setting‚ Everspace 2 is a must-play. The loot-driven space flight RPG is‚ at least for my money‚ the most exciting space game to launch in 2023‚ and following its first huge free update developer Rockfish Games has big plans for its second major upgrade including a switch to UE5 - although it’s taking a little longer to make sure everything’s shipshape and correct. Continue reading 2023’s best space game is getting a big engine upgrade in free update MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best space games on PC‚ Best upcoming games