Rate To Be Paid – Ratetobepaid.com

Good day, forum users, friends! The project is at the “partisan” stage. Later, the design, plans, and referral program will be updated!

I am not the admin / Creator of the project.
the topic is not a call to action and was created for informational purposes.
project start: 17.04.2021

ABOUT the project!

QUOTE

Our program “RateToBePaid” organizes the most luxurious leisure water activities for you: diving with the beautiful fish, yachting on the expensive ships, surfing on the high waves, enjoying the breathtaking sea views and relaxing under the warm sun. We always take care of your rest as we focus on comfort and level of satisfaction of our clients and investors. Our specialists are also looking into different kinds of start-ups, logistics schemes, programming.

The program “RateToBePaid” aims to give you an opportunity to benefit in those spheres of life, where it is feasible and realistic – you will be able to make profit safely, without any risks or doubts. “RateToBePaid” can help you to become financially independent and improve your level of living conditions – now the decision is yours! Investing with us you will invest into yourself! We are waiting for your response and we are ready to assist you in creating the best version of your life already now!
Enjoy!

Project Marketing!!!

QUOTE


plan 1
2.1% after 3 days
$10 – $50
principal return

plan 2
0.8% daily, for 7 days
$30 – $100
principal return

plan 3
0.9% daily, for 11 days
$50 – $100
principal return

You can have only one deposit per plan.

Minimum investment amount!

QUOTE

Payment systems!

PM
(Over time, other payment systems will be added)

payment Rules!

Manual, within 24 hours.

The Output Is Minimal!

QUOTE

Referral Program!

QUOTE

Language versions!


English

Soc. Networks and Support!

Support service. (email protected)
( Other communication methods will be added, as well as social networks)

Attention!!!
Technical specifications
Registrar
NameCheap show whois
Period
Mar 30, 2021 – Mar 30, 2022
Registered for 1 year

Script unique
Hosting
Cloudflare (203 payingHYIPs)
IP address
172.67.197.242 (United States / Ashburn)
The IP was not used in other projects
NS servers
jaxson.ns.cloudflare.com, simone.ns.cloudflare.com
SSL
Cloudflare Inc ECX-3 valid from 30 Mar, 2021 to 30 Mar, 2022 – Cloudflare, Inc.
IPB Image

My Deposit!!!

Date : 04/22/2021 10:05
From/To Account : U27274326
Amount : -100.00
Currency : USD
Batch : 387141634
Memo : Shopping Cart Payment. ratetobepaid.com.
Payment ID : 28
Hash : 8434a0021eff6cb05f0765c8abe69bb6

exchange rate – What caused bitcoin to fall ~$10k on 17 April 2021?

12 minute old news from TheBlockCrypto twitter feed:

$7.6 billion crypto long positions liquidated in one hour as bitcoin plunges to $52,000

Context

According to statista, the total market capitalization of bitcoin is approximately 1100 billion USD.

So 7.6 billion represents well over half a percent of bitcoin’s entire market cap, explaining why such a large sell off would have a visible effect on the market price.

exchange rate – What would happen when everybody decides to convert their BTC to cash?

In order for you to sell your BTC for fiat cash, another trader needs to be on the other end of that deal and be willing to buy your BTC in exchange for their fiat cash.

So as long as someone is willing to buy your Bitcoin for cash, it’ll have a dollar value. Now, if everyone only wanted to sell Bitcoin, and nobody wanted to buy it, it would be worth $0.

pr.probability – convergence rate for ergodic Markov chains induced by stable dynamical systems

Consider a deterministic dynamical system on $mathbb{R}^n$ defined by the recurrence $x_{t+1} = f(x_t)$.

Suppose the dynamical system is stable in the following sense: there exists a $Q : mathbb{R}^n rightarrow mathbb{R}_{geq 0}$ and $lambda in (0, 1)$ such that for all $x$ we have $Q(f(x)) leq lambda Q(x)$. Furthermore, for simplicity of this post, let us also assume that (a) $Q(x) geq psi | x|_2^2$ for all $x$ and (b) $Q$ is twice differentiable and its Hessian $nabla^2 Q(x)$ is uniformly upper bounded: $| nabla^2 Q(x) |_{mathrm{op}} leq L$ for all $x$.

Now consider the Markov chain ${X_t}_{t geq 0}$ given by the transition $X_{t+1} = f(X_t) + varepsilon_t$, where each $varepsilon_t$ is sampled independently across time from a distribution that is absolutely continuous wrt Lebesgue measure on $mathbb{R}^n$. Let $P$ denote the transition kernel of this Markov chain.

From standard results in Markov chain theory we know that there exists an invariant measure $pi$ and constants $R > 0$ and $r in (0, 1)$ such that for all measures $mu$:
$$
| mu P^t – pi |_{mathrm{TV}} leq R r^{t} (1 + mu(Q)), :: mu(Q) = int Q(x) mu(dx), :: t=0,1,2,….
$$

The standard way to check this is to verify a Lyapunov drift condition.
For simplicity let us assume that $varepsilon_t$ is an isotropic Gaussian in $mathbb{R}^n$. Then we use the Lyapunov stability property of $Q$, in addition to the assumptions (a) and (b) above, to argue:
$$
begin{align*}
mathbb{E}( Q(X_{t+1}) | X_t ) &leq mathbb{E}( Q(f(X_t)) + frac{L}{2} | varepsilon_t |_2^2 |X_t ) \
&leq lambda Q(X_t) + frac{L n}{2} leq frac{1+lambda}{2} Q(X_t) – frac{(1-lambda)psi}{2} |X_t|_2^2 + frac{Ln}{2}.
end{align*}
$$

Therefore, we have the drift condition:
$$
begin{align*}
&mathbb{E}( Q(X_{t+1}) | X_t ) leq frac{1+lambda}{2} Q(X_t) + frac{Ln}{2} mathbf{1}{X_t in C}, \
&C := left{ x in mathbb{R}^n : |x|_2 leq sqrt{frac{Ln}{psi(1-lambda)}} right}.
end{align*}
$$

It remains to check that $C$ is small set. In particular, we need to find a probability measure $nu$ and positive constant $eta > 0$ such that:
$$
inf_{x in C} P(x, A) geq eta nu(A) :: forall mathcal{B}(A).
$$

The standard way of doing this (see e.g. Section 5.3.5 of Meyn and Tweedie) is to set $nu(A) = frac{mu(A cap C)}{mu(C)}$, with $mu$ as the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
Writing $C = { x : |x|_2 leq R }$ and letting $q$ denote the density of an $n$-dimensional isotropic Gaussian, we have:
$$
begin{align*}
inf_{x in C} P(x, A) &= int_{A} q(f(x) – y) : dy \
&geq int_{A cap C} q(f(x) – y) : dy \
&geq inf_{x in C, y in C} q(f(x) – y) mu(A cap C) \
&= inf_{x in C, y in C} q(f(x) – y) cdot mu(C) cdot nu(A).
end{align*}
$$

This means we can take $eta = inf_{x in C, y in C} q(f(x) – y) cdot mu(C)$,
and since $q(cdot)$ is continuous and $C$ compact, we have that $eta > 0$, demonstrating $C$ is a small set.

This puts us in a position to recover the geometric ergodicty claim.
The problem here though is that the $eta$ constant will scale like $exp{ -R^2 }$, and since $R$ scales as $sqrt{n}$, this gives us that $eta asymp exp{-n}$.
This in turn tells us that the ergodicity rate $r$ will scale like $1 – e^{-n}$ (see e.g. Theorem 1.3 of Hairer and Mattingly).

Question: Is this exponential dependence in the ergodicity rate a limitation of the analysis, or is it actually unavoidable in general?

How is the exchange rate for Bitcoin established?

The simple answer is that it is the price at which a seller and a buyer of the currency agreed on a price for it; i.e. the price at which the market clears. The sold currency is, after all, a commodity.

It may help you to strip away any superfluous notions to think of it as a pound of coffee or somesuch. Seller Sally has coffee but wants dollars. Buyer Bob has dollars and wants coffee. Sally will not part with her coffee for less than $4. And Bob will not buy coffee for more than $3 dollars. The market fails to clear at these prices. A new seller, Sam enters the market and is willing to sell his coffee for $3.50. And a new buyer, Bill, enters and is willing to buy coffee for $3.50. Sam and Bill exchange coffee for dollars. This fact is published to the rest of the market participants; who are thereby able to conclude that at some point in the recent past that two participants were able to transact at the price of $3.50. As an entrant to the market, are you guaranteed to find another buyer or seller at that price? No. But it’s a useful piece of data.

If you really want to know how this — and economy in general — works, you’ll have to do a little reading. As a start, I recommend:

Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit

http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Contents.aspx

digital asset management – How to rate photo relative to others in a set?

After taking a set of photos and importing them to my computer, I like to look through and choose the best ones, as I expect most people do. The usual way to record this seems by setting a 1-5 star-rating in the photo metadata (either in file or in a separate database or sidecar file).

But while a photo might be the best of a set, it still might not be one that I think is particularly good or interesting compared to other photos I’ve taken – e.g. perhaps the entire set is of a subject that’s not all that interesting to me.

The star rating seems to be treated as relative to all my other photos – e.g. in Digikam there is a prominent option to see all photos that have ever been given any particular star rating.

Are there good ways to record the rating of a photo relative to other photos in the set? This would seem useful when I don’t particularly want to make a given photo highly prominent to myself, but I want to ensure that next time I look at that set of images I will immediately be able to find the ones I thought were the best of them.

exchange rate – How is it logically possible for the Bitcoin price to crash like this in spite of the constant stream of “massive Bitcoin news”?

We are down at −14.42% from the ATH now. That’s after Tesla starts accepting Bitcoin and all kinds of massive Bitcoin news happen every single day.

But the price never goes up. After it barely sniffed at 60k, it just… stopped caring.

It’s true that I expected an unreasonable 1 million USD prior to even this year, but at this point, I must seriously say that Bitcoin has let me down by not even going to 100k yet, and not even 70k… which is very worrisome. Especially as it’s now down to 52k again, which is quite frightening.

How is this even logically and technically possible? Why has apparently everyone stopped caring when they should be caring the most about Bitcoin?

real analysis – Divergence rate of series

This could very well be an undergraduate homework exercise, but I cannot quite see what is happening:

Let $x_n$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that $sum_{n=1}^{infty} x_n <infty.$

I would then like to estimate

$$sum_{n=1}^{N} nlog(n)^2 x_n.$$

I understand that by monotonicity, we can just do a Hoelder estimate:

$$sum_{n=1}^{N} nlog(n)^2 x_nle C Nlog(N)^2.$$

As Christian Remling pointed out, convergence of the series essentially implies that we have

$$sum_{n=1}^{N} nlog(n)^2 x_n= o(Nlog(N)^2).$$

I wonder however, if this is really sharp or whether we can improve on this. Namely, let $x_n=frac{1}{nlog(n)}$ then this sequence is not summable, however, we would already have for this one that

$$sum_{n=1}^{N} nlog(n)^2 x_n = sum_{n=1}^N log(n) = mathcal O(N log(N)).$$

I would therefore like to ask: Can we classify the sequences that do not satisfy the improved estimate $mathcal O(Nlog(N))$?-Any standard example of a sequence that is summable should satisfy the $mathcal O(N log(N))$ bound, but some very unusual ones may only satisfy $o(Nlog(N)^2)$. Can we understand when this happens?

audio – Why doesn’t Pulseaudio output at the source bit depth/sample rate unless forced?

I have a Raspberry Pi 4 with Twister OS (which is a RPi OS fork which comes with Box86 preinstalled and configured for x86 emulation) which I’m trying to configure for bit perfect playback with my DAC. My DAC has a display where it shows the sampling frequency it receives. It always shows the correct sampling frequency under Windows. But not with Linux, where without configuration it always display 44.1. If I edit /etc/pulse/daemon.conf and change default-sample-rate to 96000 and reboot (pulseaudio -k followed by pulseaudio -D doesn’t work), my DAC always shows 96kHz, no matter the source sampling rate. But if I comment out default-sample-rate and play a 96kHz file, the DAC displays 44.1kHz as the sample rate. Also, avoid-resampling is set to ‘yes’, but doesn’t have an effect. So even if the DAC receives 96kHz, I’m not sure some upsampling isn’t applied somewhere along the way, as in the sound player plays 96KHz, it’s resampled to 44.1 and then back to 96 because /etc/pulse/daemon.conf says so.

Is it possible to increase the email delivery rate in Postfix?

I have a single account on a Postfix server that receives a high volume of email. These emails are then handed off to a process in Procmail.

Reading through the Postfix documentation it makes reference to a variable called ‘local_destination_concurrency_limit’. Specifically it says.

controls how many messages are delivered simultaneously to the same local recipient. The recommended limit is low because delivery to the same mailbox must happen sequentially, so massive parallelism is not useful.

Currently, the user is receiving about 1-2 messages per second. I would like to increase this to six messages per second, so I added the following to my main.cf file and restarted Postfix.

local_destination_concurrency_limit = 6

This however does not seem to have an affect on how many messages get delivered simultaneously. Below is the portion of my mail.log after making this change.

postfix log

If you look at the time stamp, you will see I am only receiving about one message per second. I know the documentation mentions that messages need to be received in sequential order, however in my situation that wouldn’t matter, since each message is independent and would be alright if they were received out of order.

I have a script that sends approximately 40 emails to that high volume email address, which only takes about 2-3 seconds to complete, so I know that they should all be hitting the server close to the same time.

How do I configure postfix to deliver more than 1-2 emails simultaneously to an account?

Thanks