21 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 5h \ on: Finally Free BooksAndArticles
Its a gripping story, it certainly captured my interest.
I have no idea if that is autobiographical or not (don't feel compelled to answer), but it certainly read as if it were true.
You are correct that in any case where an outside investor held the bond, this does not cause any direct shrinkage of money supply. This is probably the "normal case".
However, in the case that it was the Fed itself holding the bond, then the payoff will cause a reduction in its balance sheet.
As an example, lets assume a scenario where there is $0 in circulation:
- US Treasury issues a bond for $100
- Fed conjures $100 in Federal Reserve Notes into existence and buys bond with that.
- US Treasury now has $100 and it spends that into economy, total money supply is $100
- At this moment, the Feds Balance Sheet is: Assets $100 US Bonds / Liabilities $100 FRN
- After some time, the US Treasury pays off bond. Now the balance sheet of the Fed is Assets $0 / Liabilities $0
- In order to issue more money into circulation, the Fed must have some Asset on its Balance Sheet to issue Federal Reserve Notes against, thus another Asset is needed, so for the time being that money is taken out of circulation.
This is all of course theoretical, since the US never pays off its debt anymore. They simply rollover existing debt with new debt. I was simply trying to make the best case for the system - pretending to be a defender of it.
Getting wealthy might be about taking risks and opportunities. Staying wealthy involves humility, frugality, and avoiding overreach.
+100
yeh.
I have no idea how this corresponds to what Saylor is doing, as I'm not interested in either, thus cant be bothered to dig into them.
Anyone else enjoy these types of movies?
These days I hardly consume any media. I got rid of TV about 10 years ago, however for the final 5 or 6 years I had a TV I would watch old TV shows from 60s/70s. Things like Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Little House on the Prairie, etc.
It was refreshing at the time to watch stories not imbued with all the current insidious political messages, which I imagine you notice watching vintage movies?
You know, I think the average "gold, bitcoin, anti-fed" person could actually do a better job of both explaining / defending the current system than these guys can.
-
The government is not technically "printing the money". It has outsourced currency creation to the Fed. The US gov is printing bonds, which it sells to Fed/Banks in exchange for a "US Dollar simulacrum" (ie. Fed Reserve Notes).
-
This approach of borrowing a currency you could just directly print, while byzantine in structure, was instituted with the idea that the resulting debt provides a natural counterbalance against the issuance. Therefore, it is the counterweight to prevent unbridled and endless printing, since the gov will need to pay off those loans to expire the debt.
-
Lastly, when (if) the gov pays off the bonds, it technically extinguishes that currency out of existence, thus shrinks the monetary base (ie. less dollars in existence).
Its sad when the systems harshest critics understand it better than those running it.
Well Musk could do that because he bought out all the shareholders and is the single and only boss.
The CEO of a public company is just the "manager for the shareholders". The role, in fact, has little autonomy.
I think its possible to also take a more charitable view of him. After all, Jack was just a tech kid building websites because he liked to code.
Running a company of that size is hard. Damn near impossible. Its hard to control 1000s of different view points and 1000s of different agendas, when each may be working against your own in various ways.
Moreover, in the end Twitter was compromised by the intelligence community. It should be no surprise that they were successful, since that is their entire job. They know how to push narratives into organizations, find internal champions for those narratives, and then apply subtle external pressure to force the organization into the path it wants them to go.
The idea that a tech wizkid was going to be suited to control that beast or able to deflect against the government attacks is naive. I dont know this, but I suspect that Jack is overjoyed he is out of Twitter and probably will never seek to ever get involved with another "social media company" ever again.
We need some well-funded BTC-focused lobbyist / litigation group.
Its hard to kickstart that at the pleb-level as it requires some big names (large stack holders) to champion it. Problem is (as I've said before), all the really large stack holders are either: (a) Playing jurisdictional arbitrage thus dont feel threatened, or (b) Already part of WallStreet machine, thus don't feel threatened.
(Obviously the counter to their view is that helping secure BTC in USA is probably the number #1 most important regulatory market in the world. Many positive effects will flow out from having sensible policies in US)
Musk is going to have to secure lots of energy to power his AI data centers.
I wonder if this will cause him to reconsider his rather simpleton view of BTC energy requirements.
Dean was represented by a law firm in South Carolina that also represented Boeing whistleblower John “Mitch” Barnett. Barnett was found dead in an apparent suicide in March.
Probably all just a big coincidence....
One thing to be cognizant of, is that
sudo
does some tricks to integrate with your current session, which run0
may not do...so I don't think it will be a "drop in" replacement.Example:
$ export TEST=hello $ echo $TEST hello $ sudo echo $TEST hello
You can see that
sudo
has inherited the local variables to make things work in a more seemless manner. From what I've read, run0
is the equivalent of logging in as root, thus will probably not (by default) inherit local variables.How are other protocols fairing?
Has TCP/IP seen any recent changes? What about SMTP?
(I'm not being snarky, I honestly don't know). But my deeper point is I think at some point widely used protocols tend to ossify naturally as the risk of disruption becomes too great.
There is a theory that the brain is a sensory organ, an antenna of sorts, and not itself the fount of consciousness.
It makes sense if true. The eyes perceive light, the ears sound pressure changes, the skin touch, the tongue / nose senses chemicals....and the brain is a sensory organ that receives consciousness waves.
IF the Power-Law style model is true, the amount needed to live indefinitely[1] may be much smaller than is imagined.
I would guesstimate that around 15-20 BTC could be enough for that.
NOTE: By "indefinite" I'm meaning that not only enough to last for you entire life, but actually continue to grow in purchasing power each year. Like true escape velocity
The 100% biggest issues of Nostr are privacy issues. Specifically "IP Leaking via relays" and "seeing DM activity between known public keys".
For #1. To be clear, I'm not sure if thats nostr problem to solve....I mean VPNs / Tor exist for this exact reason.
However #2 is a harder problem to solve. If you are a known entity (Odell for instance), then your public key becomes known. Therefore its trivial to see "who is DM-ing who" and related "who is zapping who". Both of those are pretty bad for privacy.
That the present is all we have to live in. Or to lose.
Yes, that is a radical understanding. Its even more profound when you realize that "present" is down to nanosecond. We live in a pinpoint where everything else is either the past or the expectation of what is about to become.
Project Bluebeam distraction?
The government has a HUGE vested interest in us believing and being frightened by, amorphous threats that can appear and disappear depending on the circumstance.
If they lie about the small inconsequential things (ie. rate of inflation), why should we trust them now that they "just want to be honest with us?"
Summary: I wanted to cede control of everything in my life to 3rd parties (ie. The Cloud). Now I'm surprised and frustrated that I cannot access those things. I've decided to place the blame on some specific authentication protocol, instead of realizing that "logging into a service to change the lounge lights" was in fact the problem.
This entire story reads like a Onion-mock-HackerNews article.
I have no particular love affair with agile / scrum, but I think this take is rather juvenile...and frankly sounds like someone who is too emotional / unhinged.
First off, if we say "agile / scrum has failed" it begs the question, what should it get replaced with? Waterfall? Spec-driven development?
This discussion ultimately needs to face the fact that while spec-driven development was the gold standard for many years, it only worked because the solutions they were developing were software controlling formalized systems....
That is to say, in 1960 the software control system for the electricity power plant could be developed by using "software engineering" methods because the power plant itself was formally spec-ed and developed using engineering methods. The specific electrical components of the power plant had formalized input / outputs, so you could model that in software.
In 1970 your accounting system could be spec-driven because well....math itself is a formalized system.
As software started to push into more and more areas, it increasingly found that no specs could exist because there was no formalized system beneath it. A "chat network" cant really be spec-ed because at its core human communication isn't easily reduced to some formal system.
Scrum / Agile was a response to that and a decision to move away from spec-driven development and instead to break down deliverables into small bite-sized pieces so you could roll out something like "chat software" in distinct piecemeal phases.