Inflation is caused by money becoming worth less due to more of it being available.

One of the main ways people get access to more money, is by borrowing for institutions like banks. If the bank is loaning out money for 0% interest rates, this will stimulate the economy to grow, as people are borrowing and spending more money.

However, borrowing money for 0% interest would mean that there is little incentive for people to think to much about what they are borrowing, so too much money is released into the economy, decreasing the value of money overall. If everyone has 100$, really nobody as 100$. This causes the bubbles you’ll hear everyone talking about, and is why companies like Tesla are overvalued. People can invest tons of money into them for little interest.

So when the Fed increases interest rates, people will start borrowing less, as the monthly payments will make them think a lot longer about what they want to invest into. So higher interest rates means less borrowing, means less money being freely available in the economy, meaning the strength that 1 money is more, decreasing inflation.

TLDR: more borrowing due to lower inflation, the less money is worth(inflation). Less borrowing due to higher inflation, the more money is worth(deflation).

Sorry if this is a bit all over the place, hope it kinda helps

An organ is any collection of cells specialised to do a specific job (or jobs). Your skin, bones, stomach, basically any seperate living part of your body is considered an organ.

The only difference about skin is that it's external, which honestly doesn't make it terribly special. Something had to be on the outside of you.

In science and tech it happens a lot more frequently, but also I'd imagine depending on the country you'll seldom see PhDs without Masters, especially in the humanities.

I'm from Canada, and there are almost no humanities PhD programs that will even entertain your application without a Master's. I haven't looked into hard sciences; I know some years ago if you started your MSc they'd often let you just advance straight through to a PhD without actually completing your Masters, but I'm not sure how common that is anymore. Usually you had to have at least been accepted to an MSc program first to be able to do that though. And some of them are dual programs, so you're admitted to your PhD contingents upon doing a Master's first

At my grad school, I think every single PhD student has an MA/MSc, because it is a requirement for the program. The only exception I think is people who have worked for a very long time, they may make an exception there but I'm not sure.

In Italy you don't have the choice, so it mostly depends.

Tho I saw that your PhDs is 4 years long, whereas ours is 2 years usually. So you do 2 years master degree and 2 year PhD, so it doesn't really change that much compared to yours

Bull Shitter, Master of the Same, Piled Higher and Deeper.

It means that the Federal Reserve is setting the target for how much interest they charge when they lend money to banks. In turn, this raises how much banks charge each other for overnight loans. By setting the rate higher, banks will be less likely to borrow money and more likely to hold what they have. Essentially, banks are less likely to borrow and lend money, which means there is less money to go around

It also increases the interest rates for consumer loans. This means that people will be less likely to make larger purchases that require financing, and will be more likely to save money to take advantage of the higher returns.

Since there is less spending going on and less money to go around, demand for products goes down, which should force retailers to reduce their prices (or lessen the amount they increase them by)

From the perspective of the photon, there is no journey at all. It begins and ends at the same moment with zero time or distance in between. This is why a photon's "point of view" is just not a valid reference frame for any measurement.

In the U.S., at least, associate's degrees tend to have a specific vocation as the goal of attaining the degree. In recent decades some schools (generally for-profits) have earned associate's degrees a bad reputation here, though I'm sure the usefulness of different associate's degrees varies from field to field. There are some jobs where an associate's is required for licensing or certification, and others it just looks good on a resume. Do a lot of research and talk to people in the field before pursuing an associate's is the advice I would give (and frankly applies to bachelor's and master's, too).

The federal reserve lends money to banks. Banks can, and do, borrow massive amounts of capital from the Fed, which they use to lend money to everyone else. Generally speaking, bank-to-everyone-else loans have a higher interest rate than fed-to-bank loans (since otherwise the bank is losing money acting as a middle-man).

By raising their interest rate, the fed makes borrowing from them more expensive. That reduces the amount banks borrow from them to re-loan to others, which in turn reduces the money supply - the availability of money as opposed to other goods - in the economy as a whole. Since high money supply is one cause of inflation, this can help reduce inflation through government policy. (The current episode of inflation is pretty weird though, and only loosely caused by money-supply issues.)

I feel like associate's degrees are almost exclusively in smaller colleges. Universities tend to only offer bachelor's and up, but an associate's degree is still a degree

Me to, and I keep it on me at all times.

Interesting! Did you apply for a masters at a Uni and then enter their doctoral program? Or did you do this at different institutions or was it a joint program? What area of study, if you don’t mind my asking.

Never heard that term, which is amusing given that is what I did.

Often a Masters will come before a doctorate, though degrees like Juris Doctorate (lawyer) will combine both and only require a Bachelors/undergrad to enter the program.

Let's say you roll 2 dice one at a time. There are 36 possible outcomes. You always had a 1 in 36 chance of rolling one of these combinations. That means that rolling a 6 then a 6 was always 1 in 36.

After you roll the first dice, you can no longer roll the other 5 numbers on the first dice, so as a result the chances of 30 of the combinations coming up is now 0%. The remaining 6 combinations are now 100%, up from 16.6% before the first roll.

The logical fallacy is that rolling a 6 and a 6 was always a 1 in 36 chance. But after you've rolled the first dice, you're not just asking if you're going to roll a 6 again. You're also asking what's the probability that I'm going to roll a double, which should be a lower probability right? The problem is that rolling 2 6's wasn't the only possible double before you rolled the first dice. You always had a 6 in 36 chance of rolling a double (1, 1 or 2, 2 etc). After rolling that first dice, you only have 1 chance to roll a 6 but there's no longer 36 possibilities, there's only 6.

Of course. Science is wrong. Got it. Have a nice day.

civic duty. you're a citizen. that comes with obligations like paying taxes and serving jury duty when summoned.

The insight here is that, provided you are not certain of the fairness of the die, each roll would give you information about its fairness (and therefore about future rolls). The rolls themselves are still independent even on an unfair die, but you will develop progressively better estimates of the actual underlying probabilities.

(Of course, in basic statistics we ignore this sort of thing and just assume the die is fair or loaded in some known way. But this is an important caveat in real-world statistics!)

Yep. All the science is wrong. Have a nice day.

Correct. I wish they would confer both degrees and get rid of the stigma around “mastering out”.

> There's nothing connecting one roll to the next; they are completely independent.

...under the assumption of a completely fair die. (An assumption you are usually making in a statistics class.)

In practice, though, the fairness of the die may be in doubt in many real-world scenarios.

[removed]

In any of the sciences and (more limitedly since this isn’t my specific area) humanities I don’t know of a single program that requires a masters to apply for the doctorate. The masters is usually the result of someone leaving the doctoral program after coursework is complete but before having completed a large enough body of research to be considered ABD (all but dissertation). It could be different perhaps in other fields. There are definitely masters specific programs - MBA and public health both come to mind but at least for public health I don’t know of a program that would require the MPH for admission to a PhD program.

It's considered an obligation of service to our society/government.. just as we pay taxes, abide by laws, vote, etc. If we want to have access to a jury trial when we're the one being accused or a party in a lawsuit, we need to also be willing to serve on a jury.

Usually, it's not too hard to defer a jury duty summons if there's a legitimate reason, like being out of town, medical issue, lack of childcare, etc.

My favorite part is the irony.