HN user

gzu

384 karma
Posts2
Comments94
View on HN

It's like if only we put more resources towards potential societal altering technologies like these instead of [insert random SAAS app]. Maybe tech investors aren't very comfortable with projects outside their domain knowledge and expect an quick return. Quaise last financing round was something like $20M...

No, you don't simply "move to a new coin". ETH is currently a 420B market cap and rewards GPU miners something on the order of 13,000 ETH a day conservatively (without fees). That's nearly 50m dollars a day or 1.5B dollars a month!

The only "other coins" available to be mined with GPUs are tiny. Ethereum classic has only a 8B market cap, Ravencoin with 1B, then many sub 1B coins.

https://www.kryptex.org/en/mining-calculator

I wonder much of this is caused by recent installments of agricultural field drainage tile?

Land price increases allow for more farmers to afford to "improve" their farmland by adding underground pipes that quickly wick standing water away into nearby creeks and rivers. What used to be evaporated or absorbed into soils is dumping straight into waterways.

What about 0 percent interest rates? How much environmentally damaging malinvestment across the globe has been caused by risk free money?

Think of how carbon intensive the concrete, steel, manufacturing, power generation industry are. Not to mention the population boom beyond our earths carrying capacity needed to perpetuate our ever increasing monetary scheme requiring never ending growth where deflation can never exist.

Central banks are trying to prop up the deflationary structural changes happening in the broader world economies due to aging demographics and technology reducing the value of human labor.

The end result is an enormous asset bubble as their only solution is to print money to prevent any actual deflation from happening as that would implode the financial system.

Your logic is flawed in that shares aren't simply "destroyed" they have to be bought back on the open market at an agreed upon price from a willing seller. The sellers of the shares may not want to sell and will therefore require more than the perfect price 𐀃X that accounts for adjustment of market cap based on reduction in shares.

In theory if no one wants to sell shares of Apple during a buyback the share price will head towards infinity. There's always a price though that someone will let go of a share at.

Sure in a perfect world you decide to sell 1 share to Apple. The share price increases to account to for the lost share and market cap stays same.

In reality, enormous swaths of shares are held by index tracking funds and everyday investors who don’t sell their shares into buybacks. In this case the market price based off supply/demand must rise in order to find someone who will let go of a share so Apple can buy it.

Don't forget the non-emotional constant demand for Apple shares caused by stock buybacks combined with a 7% weight in the S&P 500. Every new dollar invested in an index tracking ETF/mutual fund needs to buy 7c worth of Apple stock from someone.

It's a huge supply/demand problem. At what price will someone forego Apple shares? What happens when Apple is 10%, 15% etc of the S&P 500 index? Where will these shares to sell come from? At this point, why would anyone holding Apple shares outright sell?

This demand may only lead to a self reinforcing feedback loop where: a greater market cap (3T?) -> higher index weight (10+%) -> greater buying pressure -> more shares locked up in index funds (not available for sale) -> repeat

This is explains why there has been increasingly volatile movements in Apple shares. This lack of share liquidity works both directions: buying and selling. Not enough active investors are available to step in when passive investors (who now make up an enormous portion of capital markets) decide to start selling index tracking funds in bulk.

So does this ban transactions with all of Tencent or just those in relation to WeChat? https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...

  Section 1.  (a)  The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent Holdings Ltd. (a.k.a. TĂ©ngxĂčn KĂČnggǔ YǒuxiĂ n GƍngsÄ«), Shenzhen, China, or any subsidiary of that entity, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under section 1(c) of this order.

The lack of real world experience on a HackerNews UBI discussion is infuriating. Western society's white collar elite are completely unaware of truly how many "sucky" jobs there are in the world that all enable our (currently) superior standard of living. Your entire existence relies on a globalist system of slave level labor producing products from all corners of the world. Automation of every industry is impossible unless we have true human replacement robots (many decades out). UBI will over time simply raise costs of all goods/services to subwelfare level that people "can't live on".

Whos going to: - clean your hotel/office/home - cook your food - serve your food - fix your household - grab your garbage - build new houses - build/maintain roads - build/maintain water, sewers - deliver your packages/mail - Drive trucks around - pack/unpack trucks - produce meat products (have you seen a meatpacking plant?) - maintain farms/livestock - provide difficult medical services - be a nurse aide (clean poo?)

I have not even started to list all the jobs required in order to "magically" produce our cheap goods from overseas including clothing and electronics. These are farrrr from completely automated.

Lazy Americans don't need to work right? Discussion about UBI is an expression of guilt over how well our standard of living (general hacker news crowd) compared to the vast majority of the world.

Confidential VMs 6 years ago

That's what I don't quite understand about the current state of cloud computing. We're seeing huge advances in hardware/network technologies this decade but there's an ever increasing push to centralize hosting with cloud providers. Will this ever swing the other way?