pull down to refresh
their interest was also piqued when I told them that the users on SN really love to hear about economics. As a bunch of econ professors, we're not exactly used to hearing that
Lovely enough! Flattery always welcome.
Agreed that size is a problem — not just for your paper. You can def observe weird-ish quirky behavior in such a small subset of peep. Esp when the reason they are here is already around an ideologically filtered devotion to, in this case, bitcoin.
The identity obsession is weird... People say the nastiest things online in their own name already, so this fairytale that things get better and nicer if the bots and nyms go away is just not very convincing
don't live there but I know at this point in my life I am unmoved by these alarmist predictions.
Definitely
lolz yeah. The deforestation there is like 0.something % a year... We shall see, but could be a skeptic
Hm... This is euphemism for AI, yes?
we're not making this decision because we're in trouble. our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers, and profitability is improving. but something has changed. we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.
I suppose so? But then again, the steelman case for tariff wasn't for them to work on price but on quantity -> relocate factories to inside US market, reducing current account deficit, and thereby China would reduce dollar buying.
So the forces are working at cross-purposes
Can't say I've ever heard Undisc's explanation but perhaps.
My fav candidate explanations are
- social cohesion/cultural community
- an economic and social/political system that cuts out the worst outcomes (even at extreme expense to others) which improves the average of these reports
- liberal distribution and use of antidepressants (and to the extent they work etc), which achieves the same thing: statistically cut out the worst, most miserable peeps
But yeah, it's always fun to present number-1 status to Finns or Danes and see them go, huh, wth are you talking about??
Johan Norberg (Swedish liberal and writer) used to answer this critique with:
Sure, it's true that what we have isn't pure capitalism, but that doesn't mean the rhetorical symmetry is correct:
- almost-socialism impoverished nations and killed hundreds of millions
- almost-capitalism enriched the world and made us all better off.
The efficient number of mining pools is.... probably about 1-3.
While having lots of pools seems like a good thing, if you think about it, it doesn't actually fix the problem. Whether there are three pools or thirty, individual miners still have to work against variance and latency and those miners who join bigger pools will still have an advantage.
Resonated.
That I believe, actually. Bigger is different