HN user
Just curious if you’ve any anecdotes about behavior of nouveau generation. While not a parent myself I’ve heard many times from parent and youth peers that the new generations are entirely lacking IRL social skills, instead deferring their social lives entirely to their digital presence. As a result, basic conversational skills development is limited.
Internet connected the world, and changed how we interact fundamentally. Blockchain uses the internet to create politically resistant money as a primary use case. Just not seeing how blockchain fits into any ongoing revolution, in part because it only can exist because of government/corporate controlled pipes on which it relies.
Sadly, such tools tend to be used also by bad actors. One of sound principle surely supports folks defending themselves against genuine oppression, yet I question the net effect of commoditizing what was once the domain of cypherpunks and criminals.
It would be quite different if they reduced speed without a need to control battery expenditure. Planned obsolescence is a benefit to future sales, but seems this is a technical requirement to work around limitations of batteries.
Transparency to end user would be helpful to end user. Doesn’t full performance come back when running on wire power?
First, check if old person really does want to grind hard on coding. If not, there could be issues that came up or accumulated over time. Burnout is most likely example - how many humans do well staring at code for decades? Not all programmers become more productive over time. Just an anecdote really but surely this is the case for many.
We’ve come a long way from the 2007 study by Italian nuns on the connection between stress and disease. You know, which I read about at the job I started on March 15th (ref: HELen).
This thread helps confirm my long term desire to self terminate. I didn’t have much insight into how a bpd looks from both sides but it’s clear to me that having a psychiatric disorder can put someone in a whole different universe from others despite appearances.
If someone believes others are out to get them, if they’re sensitive, or whatever behaviors they manifest, who is anyone to say what they feel is right or wrong? Their behaviors may not fit in with society at large, but nobody can speak to their perceptions.
The world is complicated now and people on average have a more intricate social universe than ever before. I’m sad to say that I couldn’t find my place in human society. Seeing where I am at personally relative to what I’ve learned from this thread is very painful.
Wishing for the best for everyone here. Nobody should have to suffer and it’s commendable that so many fight the good fight. Be well.
Reading this thread is very disheartening. BPD symptoms are so common, and probably possible to see from afar, for instance the lone wolf who got picked on in school probably has better than average chance of eventually developing such symptoms.
Who is Julia? Just curious. Thanks for sharing your perspective and following up with the other poster in detail.
You believe housing will fall in fiat? So a $1MM home will be $900k, etc? What’s btc have to do with this? Why would housing go down in fiat if bitcoin is going up in fiat?
Is anyone pricing housing indexes in bitcoin? You could maybe come up with one yourself.
He already said it wasn’t his and that he didn’t know how it was hidden in his car. Whether under duress or not, the authorities aren’t giving the money back as a result.
Such proof is now needed.
He needs an indisputable paper trail showing that the money was his. That’s a lot of cash and there’s little reason to keep all of your legitimate fiat savings in cash like that.
I’m convinced people are searching for it. I’m convinced there’s a huge nouveau academic interest in this area. This just helps to estimate likelihood of bitcoin’s longevity.
Yes, precisely, you always need buyers to push price further. Market decides up or down, miners play along as it makes sense to them. Kind of like the swap over to bcash about a month ago, because it made sense financially.
There’s a difference between scolding energy usage and pointing out that the design itself, even if efficiency of that design is increased, is what leads to this spiraling energy expenditure that powers massive computational hashing power only to support that currency and nothing else (no other social or technical goals). There are better ways to design such a system to do more than perform endless hashing that is merely self-serving. Furthermore, there could be innovations related to a trustless system that will make bitcoin itself obsolete; the future of bitcoin as leader isn’t guaranteed.
This isn’t related to heating or driving efficiency.
1) Yes, and bitcoin isn’t the only player in town.
2) It’s not assured that major breakthroughs will occur within the bitcoin ecosystem, nor that they will fold back into it.
I’m pretty familiar with bitcoin’s current technology developments. There are opinions, theories, and experiments flying around about how to build that rocket ship. Very very early and unclear.
The energy usage is not sustainable; we don’t have “decentralized logarithmically increasing clean energy sources” upon which to build bitcoin’s network to the stratospheric levels needed to achieve moonshot valuations, not without a serious innovation in technology to evolve the usage of bitcoin as a currency. Something better and more energy efficient for a trustless solution could come along.
Most everyone knows cryptocurrencies are here to stay but that’s not directly related to bitcoin, it’s price, it’s tech evolution specifically, and how it may or may not evolve into a viable currency.
1) So, a worldwide payment solution requires a spaceship, but we have first generation mainframes currently. Bitcoin is the biggest of those mainframes, uses the most energy, etc.
2) You touched upon two independent considerations.
Yes, bitcoin can evolve technologically, but it’s not assured.
Energy spent is based on incentive. Value stored isn’t directly correlated, that’s a result of price which results from buyers and sellers, which results from sentiment. Now we get into disparate supply and demand based on information advantage.
Energy utilization as it correlates to some incentive to expend such energy for monetary gain is indirectly coupled to the stored value. Other factors affect this. The market is not efficient, it behaves, pricewise, like many markets before it.
Greatest bubble of our generation, but admittedly quite the clever one. The truth is that some Silicon Valley insiders amongst other movers and shakers saw bitcoin’s potential early on for such a rise to where we are now (and possibly way more), by design and precisely because they control the narrative. It’s been exploited by smart folks. If you had the means, foresight, and motivation, you were in a privileged position to transfer wealth to yourself. Now, this is not the case.
Real people get hurt by the economic cycles we’ve seen and bitcoin is, for some, a way to be robin hood in that long time narrative.
Yes, early computer pioneers also engaged in groundbreaking work.
A huge mainframe filled with vacuum tubes seems to fit here. That’s bitcoin, currently, but for “magic internet money”. The bandwidth, throughout, and power utilization are what you might expect from such a first generation technology experiment.
The benefits of bitcoin are eclipsed by the meteoric rise, and this price increase is the basis for most new folks getting on board, not so they can use it now as a currency.
What you’ve done here is offer a detailed technical explanation and then thrown in something about deflating a debt bubble, without actually connecting them.
I’m all for the technology, but the technology itself doesn’t solve any systemic financial issues, not directly. It’s the adoption itself, and how it may be used for legit commerce, say 5-10 years down the road, that would potentially do so. And this would be facilitated by technology evolution from now until then. Bitcoin may be at the center of that evolution, but it’s not assured just yet.
People are buying or holding on speculation for various reasons but most with a common speculation: They believe that the price will continue to rise relative to their cost basis. That’s it. Some of these folks have a fundamental belief about bitcoin’s future as a currency, but that future isn’t enabled directly by the technical details that you’ve offered. Most newcomers don’t care about the revolution, they’re just trying to hop aboard a rocket ship.
You have a solid understanding of bitcoin’s technical details. Just pointing out that such details don’t directly solve any economic / debt related issues, for many reasons. One of its key limitations is that the technology of bitcoin cannot facilitate commerce at scale, not currently.
Price of bitcoin will go up or down directly as a result of decisions of buyers and sellers, nothing less or more. Greater fools applies to bitcoin just the same as other open markets.
Fixed assets, goods and services, etc., are stable relative to fiat, at least USD. So bitcon isn’t deflating any bubbles.
Depending on what market makers are up to, this will work or won’t. Trend would be towards eventually not working if it does at all. Difficult to say how liquidity differences will affect ability of your strat to work.
If later comers took more capital risk, in what way did they take less risk, exactly?
The semantics matter here. Perhaps the later comers were more opportunistic and optimistic about the likelihood of achieving a favorable return. But they had to take more risk, since they were later to the party and risked more capital (as you noted).
If that occurs, that’s your long term buy signal, right at the moment when it seems like nobody wants it anymore from having fallen so far and hard.
No, the previous poster said the earliest adopters take the most risk. In actuality, whoever pays the most for their btc takes the most risk.
Early adopters invested almost nothing compared to the amount of money moving around now (at risk on a speculative investment). Their risk was negligible and certainly far less than folks getting into the game now, coin for coin.
You’re right that if one buys 0.05 btc today for $400, it’s the same risk as someone investing $400 years ago to mine hundreds or even thousands of coins, but real investors aren’t buying 0.05 btc.
One has to be very thorough when reviewing the details of such investigations. For instance, we would want to look at details regarding the experimenter’s cable tv service. If it’s digital perhaps the viewing data was resold to fb.
At the most in those cases there’s enough info to suggest data sharing is going on at the least, but not enough to confirm anything regarding the fb app itself and the mic.
Worth investigating more, though.
Risk is defined by what can be lost. If you bought a $200 video card early on and spent $200 on electricity mining than your risk was $400. Contrarily someone right now buying a single bitcoin is going to be risking a lot more than just that.
This is not good advice. You can’t predict how much we will drop next time on stocks and how the VIX may be affected.
We are in a long term contracted state of volatility. Professionals who understand how to manage risk may make the trade(s) that you’re suggesting.
The adolescent was likely referring to a broader social perspective, not consumer oriented business models.
The adolescent here could be observing a short term trend relative to an underlying bigger picture. People are competitive by nature and the modern information age may be amplifying this for them, at least in perception.
Dude, cmon. I know this is hn and I’m supposed to put effort into crafting useful responses. But, how have those links convinced you that it must be the mic?
From the evidence in those videos, I’d rather be considering whether fb is part of a future AI continuum monitoring and influencing the past (from the future in which the AI exists) by messing with people testing this feature. Yep, cat is alive on Facebook/IG, days later. Microphones and big data/AI are but two slits through which photons can pass, in the experiment known as fb.
Source?
I disagree with your feelings about the anecdotes given there is an official account that’s more likely. Why would fb come out officially saying no, knowing they’ll be uncovered eventually if the answer ever were yes?
Also, your techniques could reveal a false negative both in the existence of a bug in the particular build of fb code being tested, and that such a mechanism could have existed in previous versions but already removed.
Interesting, curious to hear more. What techniques are you referring to? Some re-appropriation of mobile hardware for cross sensory applications? Data sharing of some kind?