pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 19m \ on: Why Young Men Are No Longer Approaching Women ideasfromtheedge
I'm not sure I buy that. Its surprising to me that no one seems to think that the "trans phenomena" couldn't be environmental poisoning.... its well known the numerous plasticizers wind up being estrogen simulators in the body.
It seems to me if we were observing a colony of rats and we saw that there was a big uptick in low sex drive + sexual disorders we would probably first think it was due to some physiological / environmental issues and not think that it was some cultural abnormality.
Trumptard here.
Can you outline exactly what these regs have to do with Bitcoin? Did they add something sneaky to the bill?
Thats a "how" explanation but not really a "why".
The normal explanation is that seeing colors accurate is less important for males than females.....seeing that your baby has developed a rash or spotting an infection is more important for a mother to have than a father.
The sacrifice in color perception in males is made up by other vision benefits: Males are typically much better at detecting motion and night vision....both skills that would reward hunting.
How are people going to click ads...
Being a member of the MSM, he is about 2 wars late. He doesn't even seem to understand whats going on....his concerns are straight out of 1999.
AI will be the ad. It will become the best ad-man that has ever existed. It will be able to deftly and expertly weave in "product recommendations" at the exact right moment that you are literally asking for it. It will be so good that the "ad" nature of it will be completely hidden. It may not even mention the product name as thats too crude...it will simply sell you on the inherent unique qualities that the product offers. You will 100% think you thought of the product yourself....
But then again, this is the same type of people that don't get Bitcoin.
Another lens to view QC is with regard to development of modern CPUs.
A very very brief history:
- 1947 - First Solid-State Transistor produced at Bell Labs
- 1954 - Texas Instruments releases first commercially available solid-state transistor
- 1971 - Intel 4004 becomes first commercially available solid-state CPU
Relating to QC tech, we would be somewhere around 1951 or so....that is we have some lab produced qubits but haven't yet got the qubit to a commercial state.
This is really just the start of the race, after "commercial qubits" we still need to figure out how to make them smaller and smaller so that they can be dense enough (1M quibits?) to perform useful work.
As Hossenfelder says: "We need 1M qubits and we are still about 1M qubits away...."
Now there is another aspect (that they hardly ever talk about) and that is software. Do we actually have algorithms that work on QC? So far the proof-of-concepts algos have each be proven that classical computers could do as well....the one example they've produced of a actual QC algo was a pointless result....meaning while it was strictly technically true that they way in which it performed the task was faster than a classical CPU, you could in fact perform the task much faster using a classical CPU just using a different procedure.
As an analogy, suppose I said I invented a house painting robot that could automatically paint a house in 148 hours....and I pointed out that there was no other automated process that could achieve that. That might strictly be true, but it fails to acknowledge that a single workman with a roller brush can probably paint the house in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the money.....
Democracy is this:
Imagine 10,000 people in a town. I propose a bill to charge everyone $5 per year...The money will be given to my 5 friends. Will the bill pass?
Yes. It will pass every time. Why would anyone vote for it? Simple because my 5 friends are incentived to go muster support for this bill....they will go advocate for it, create plausible sounding arguments why its needed, maybe some of them will pay some of their friends to vote yes, etc...
Meanwhile its not worth the general publics time to advocate against it. The $5 tax doesn't rise to the level of being "actionable" - its basically something just to ignore.
Hence why these bills always pass....and after a couple of decades of these the frog is slowly boiled.
The goal of lowering voting age to 16 is to increase the pool of voters that are easily swayed by my 5 buddies arguments. They know 16 y/o will respond to simplistic moralistic good-bad tropes....thus we can keep our scheme going.
So I was an early Linux user in the mid 90s. I helped setup the local LUG (Linux User Group) in my area of the state.
In the beginning (say 1996) we were mainly focused on new user onboarding....we used to hold "install-fest" that is we would encourage people to bring their computers to the meeting and we would help them install linux. Our goal was to show normal PC users that they didn't need to pay for an OS for regular computer use. That was marginally successful, but not really.
By 1999, we had migrated into being the opposite: a social group for advanced linux users....almost completely dropping the "new user" emphasis. Now obviously if a new user actually did show up to a meeting we would all be super helpful in answering their questions, but the truth was very few people did that.
In the end we were a group of about 20 people who would meet monthly and basically help each other with our work related linux issues, eat pizza, drink beer, and generally talk about Linux.
By 2005 or so the LUG completely disbanded. We were a victim of Linux's general success. By that time it was solidly accepted that Linux was the cornerstone of the internet tech world....and well there was little need to meet in person to discuss it.
Semi-relatedly most of us in the LUG had undergone vast changes in employment situation in that 10 years.
In 1997, the average member of the group was a Jr Sys-Admin who pushing to use linux in our respective companies, but generally completely blocked by higher ups.....by 2005 we were leading the charge and had maybe job hopped a couple of times and now were in fast growing linux focused companies....so the "social support" aspect of the LUG was no longer needed....
My take.
Preface: I'm not defending the response, which I think was handled extremely poorly, rather explaining what I think is going on.
There are 2 issues happening simultaneously.
-
The chain of custody of evidence is so poor, and extreme politicization so rampant that no one knows whats what in the evidence. Bondi has received the evidence, but no one has much faith in how accurate any of it is. The evidence points to Trump and his close circle / political appointees involvement. Maybe even AI generated video. But simultaneously seems to clear previously suspected guilty individuals.....Trump swears that such evidence is all false and planted. In short its a clusterfuck...some innocent people seem added and guilty people seem removed... and they don't have any good options for how to use the evidence they have received. By releasing it, you are both implicating the innocent and excusing the guilty.
-
Simultaneous to this, Trump is leveraging his squashing of the case for political points. That is vis a via the intelligence agencies involvement and other politicians who he thinks were involved. He is using it as an opportunity to get political favors. Case in point: The sudden DOJ cases against Brennan and Comey. The intelligence agencies have been told to stand down and allow these two to be "thrown under the bus", which they are doing. In general the intelligence agencies care more about the case never seeing the light of day rather than they do about the political fallout against this or that individual taking the fall...therefore they are happy to play ball.
Being completely honest, if this is the case, I don't know how I would handle it either. Generally I think honesty is always the best policy and there is some part of me that thinks Trump should've scheduled an interview with someone like Tucker and publicly explained the dilemma he is in instead of the complete ham-fisted response he has taken.
You've basically outlined my position as well: I'm not an expert. I attribute maybe 5-15% chance that QC develops into something real.
FWIW, Adam Back basically concurs....
The tests are setups — sleight of hand at best
Yes, Sabine Hossenfelder (PhD who specializes in quantum gravity research and who has one of the largest youtube physics channels) basically agrees with you. Each time there is some press-release about latest QC advancement she basically pours cold water on it.
This seems like a sensible approach. I think it would be better to spend our "developer consensus capital" on something like this than on more "scaling" infrastructure.
I'm not anti-covenants in principle, but the QC issues are so potentially damaging (although very low probability) that it seems that even quasi-ossification proponents could get behind it....
An average commercial passenger jet emits about 8000 tons of CO2 annually.....so this is like parking a single jet for half a year.....hardly seems worth it?
I wonder how much CO2 was emitted during the mining and construction of all that material? Like so many "climate initiatives" its negligible at best and possibly worse for the environment in total.
Absolutely correct. BRICS is just the dumbest kids in the room playing at being grown ups.
The real true comedy is they are about to completely destroyed by the coming hyper-dollarization wave that stablecoins will bring.
No one needs a Brazillian Real, or a Rand, etc...all those currencies must go away. In the end it will be better for their citizens to just use USDT or USDC on their phones....
Wouldn't it be a cosmic mindfuck if fusion becomes a thing to generate cheap electricity for bitcoin mining and one of the byproducts is gold is produced? Dual-mining?
I really don't know, but logically I think you will have to manually initiate it somehow. The theory of convertibles are like options - they are a "right" not an "obligation".
Therefore I imagine it will physically function like options currently do within your brokers platform. For options, brokers usually include an "Exercise" button next to the option once its "in the money".
When the option is not "in the money" the exercise button is usually greyed out or not present....
I would say the reasons why an OG would consider such things are:
-
Inheritance. I know there are native bitcoin solutions, but its just so much easier and straight-forward when dealing with normal stocks. There are basically 100 years of laws and infrastructure to support this.
-
BBD strategy. The mega-rich all use "Buy Borrow Die" strategy. That is you buy some asset when its very undervalued (ie. Amazon, MSFT, whatever)....and as it rises in price you borrow against it and live off the cash, never selling the original asset. Again, yes there are "bitcoin native" solutions but frankly they all kinda suck. The margin lending rates for stocks in much much lower than anything offered in bitcoin-land. I think even Robinhood offers something like 6% margin rates....which obviously means as long as 6% is less than the rate of appreciation of your asset, you can basically do this forever....
To have any de minimus exceptions are better than none though I guess
I don't understand why they didn't just use the existing "de minimus" exemption that IRS already uses for Forex.
If you travel abroad, and you "make money" on your forex (ie. price changes so that you profit between when you buy / sell), you are allowed a $200 per transaction allowance.
That means that as long as the profit was less than $200, there is no reporting required....and that is per transaction. So theoretically you could gain $199 in profit every day and not need to report.
This to me seems better than whats being offered. It would also seem easier to implement as I'm not even sure a new law is needed....simply get IRS to declare coverage of existing forex rule to "crypto"
where earlier text in a prompt loses significance - especially with reasoning on, where the reasoning picks up on some select things and then hyper-focuses sequentially
Pretty much the "teapot test" that autocorrect fails against.
The Teapot test gave a group of young kids 3 items: A ruler, a teapot, and a office desk and it asked the kids to draw a circle using only those items. The kids pretty much instantly realized that the bottom of the teapot was a circle so simply traced the circle (the office desk was intentionally chosen to be useless for the task).
Autocorrect however gets "fixated" on the ruler, this is because corpus of data that links "rulers => drawing" is multiple orders of magnitude higher than the other connections....thus is spends an inordinate amount of time trying to calculate how to draw a circle with a ruler....it eventually does succeed but obviously its doing it "the stupid way".
This in general highlights a bigger problem with AI going forward: As more and more AI generated data winds up online, then that means more and more AI data will wind up in training data....its a pretty big problem that sorta threatens the entire premise. I suppose careful curation of training data will be only solution.