pull down to refresh
@unboiled
stacking since: #1034092
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @unboiled 11h \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Champion Strategy Launches "Dollar Reserve" (FT, Nikou Asgari) econ
1.16* according to their own analytics page.
*at this very moment
But here’s the trick: if you build systems premised on the assumption that everyone is your enemy, you create the very conditions where everyone becomes your enemy.
That feels like a cheap rhetorical sleight-of-hand trick being employed. I'd first need to understand a few questions before even being in a position to understand or critically think about it.
Which specific systems have been built on that premise?
Where is proof or at least a logical thought process that such a system, where it exists, will lead to that outcome? Is that outcome inevitable, likely, or merely a possible one?
It's this type of handwavey assertion followed by "The prophecy fulfills itself" as a poor man's stand-in for "q.e.d." that makes it hard to take anything else written in this context seriously.
Can we really evaluate other species' intelligence using our own?
I think we need to start from a more controllable, basic premise:
Can we really correctly evaluate our own species' intelligence? If yes, under which conditions?
59 sats \ 0 replies \ @unboiled 1 Dec \ parent \ on: HOAs. Why do people dislike them? Politics_And_Law
This example shows why good people need to step up and take positions of political power.
I'd settle for having systems to get rid of bad people much faster and easier than it taking years and hundreds of dollars to get an obviously bad apple out of a position of power.
I don't like them, but that has to do with a catastrophic first experience.
The first HOA we were under in Australia had a geriatric, incompetent guy who managed to de facto take control of presidency, treasury, and secretary by himself.
He basically managed to get two other geriatrics appointed to be treasury and secretary, but they didn't do anything, just let him do all and only signed off his work.
At least he wasn't doing dodgy things with the funds, but over time it became clear that the common areas weren't maintained.
Add in his bullying behavior by waging lawfare (filed about a dozen lawsuits and lost all) against anyone who dared not agree with him, and we knew we had to get him out. We had only moved in after he was "in position" for years, and had the energy to take it on once we realized how bad the situation was.
Once he realized the absentee landlords whose proxy votes he had previously been given had been informed by us about the issues and were starting to withdraw their proxies leaving him with less than his previous absolute majority, he then obstructed any votes that could compromise his position from even being tabled.
At one stage, we hadn't had a ownership meetings for 18+ months as he was cancelling those with phony reasons to keep us at arm's length.
Despite having clear, well-documented evidence of his misconduct, it took us 2 1/2 years to get rid of him. We had to take it all the way through complaints at the local body corporate boards, two rounds of arbitration (attempted, he never showed), and finally a court order to put the complex under outside management for a period of time.
In our immediate surroundings (3-ish miles) here in a suburb of Cape Town there already are more than 10.
Among the ones I personally paid at, there are 3 gas stations, 4 supermarkets, 2 pharmacies and half a dozen restaurants/cafes.
And likely a similar amount of places I haven't visited or even know about yet.
What is the purpose of pay-to-post? To improve trust. To reduce spam.
I don't know about trust. I see its key purpose as attaching (a more significant) cost to posting. Which will reduce spam that cannot extract more than it has to pay.
So it's less about trust and more about making low-returning spam a negative investment. It's about incentives, not trust.
Trust may or may not be a downstream effect from that. I haven't thought deeply enough about whether or not I trust posters here more than other places because of pay-to-post.
I feel I see less noise and more signal here. But SN certainly isn't devoid of noise.
Until that day that fiat no longer exists... Bitcoin will be 'digital property' or 'digital collateral' used for savings and to improve trust.
Citation needed.
I'm using it as moe multiple times per week. Yet fiat still exists.
You're trying to describe it as if using it for savings only is the only choice. Yet there are plenty of people like me, who live the opposite of that claim.
Well if it's a currency... perhaps it isn't 'the best' currency because it has a fixed supply and an extremely volatile exchange rate. One day all of it will be mined... and in 10 years 99% of it will be mined. So perhaps spending it on tacos and beer isn't the best idea (although I personally have bought tacos and beer with Lightning).
Parker Lewis says it best:
If people don't want to spend their bitcoin, it's not really because they're worried about the price of bitcoin going up. It's because they have too much fiat.
If you truly think spending it isn't a good idea because it appreciates over fiat, it tells me you're trying to stay (or are unknowingly stuck) in fiat land and rely on Bitcoin as NGU tech only.
Crony capitalism is about distorting the markets so that the cronies can accumulate financial capital. That strategy only makes sense in a capitalist context.
Ah, thank you. I wasn't aware of that nuance forming a key part of the accusation.
In a centrally planned economy, the cronies would be accumulating some other type of power.
The political cadres in communist systems were/are exceptionally wealthy. Wouldn't that also fall under crony capitalism?
At least for a while, he claimed to have run most things through credit cards and paid those balances with btc.
So, he was still using fiat rails, but not holding any positive balances.
the idea that crony capitalism is causing most of our problems isn't 100% wrong.
In which way does crony capitalism, as opposed to cronyism alone, cause some of our problems today?
I'm genuinely curious why the word "capitalism" needed to be added.
Oh no, not the euro zone deposits that were earmarked for "activation" to "invest" in defense spending.
Not everything is about price appreciation or opportunity cost. Having a place to set down roots and raise your kids is awesome.
We love having a house. We don't even have kids, and spend at least half of each year being nomadic.
We just love having our own house that we can return to whenever we just want to spend a while in our own bed again or simply take a lengthy breather between being in foreign locations.
Yes, that comes with opportunity costs, but we're more than happy to foot the bill to afford it.
I always get worried when politicians start showing "presence."
Even more so when outside of campaigning season.
No. It’s a cross-sectional snapshot.
That makes sense to me if the only comparisons made are relative to each other, fixed at any one chosen point in time or a chosen period.
But saying for example that Belgium's GDP per hour has grown by 12.4% since 2005 seems off if the measuring stick has changed so much over 20 years.
Edit to add: If inflation doesn't matter, does that mean we would get the same value out of the charts if it was denominated in, say, Turkish Lira?