pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 8 Aug \ on: Bitcoin celebs now sell shitcoin treasury companies. bitcoin
bitcoin Twitter died.
I'm not sure what goes there now but I don't think of it as anything like ~2014-2020
I don't understand the logic of the argument that this is wrong everywhere.
I can agree that the general landscape of IP protection is killing entrepreneurship, but it seems that this is due to the rivalry that industries operate in today. This is just reality.
How many IP issues are filed in the opposite direction? I've heard of few over the last 40 years? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on IP. Just seems that there's a huge imbalance in terms of deals that involve espionage, or IP appropriation through subsidiaries.
So, as well as IP issues, I guess we could call PRC's control of critical supply-chain industries, or their global mineral and data mining operations and as 'strategic' too.
I get the point that governmental role in private industry should be questioned. But in my view, unfortunately, it's necessary to look beyond the idealism of non-interference when adversarial state-owned and state-co-opted companies have unified goals and strategy.
I.e. Is there an easy answer?
regression theorem
I can't say I'm read up on Rothbard. From first glance seems the theory has some debate with non-physical assets? Or you'd say otherwise? I'd imagine like most theories, they are subject to revision in their original premise as new challenges to them arise.
The state does not and cannot make this decision and make it stick.
But they try pretty damn hard. Thinking back on global history and the relative peaceful, or at least semi-stable state of affairs from the later 20th to the early 21st century, there was a brief period moment where the global broken money system at least functioned.
I guess regression theorem is what is said by 'intrinsic value'? Seems subjective in some sense. I was just reading about some tech company financing its balance sheet through purchases of Nvidia GPUs, and the discussion was based around them losing there value over time. Sometimes commodity financing at least seems to make more sense than paper valuations.
I was getting in the elevator today, some neighbors and their young child got in and the child showed me her Rubik cube exclaiming "It's my toy!"
I don't know why but when I read this, it reminded me of this, as I wonder if you had 400 Ph.D economists with 400 Rubik cubes. I just don't see how this solves anything at all.
I'm fine with gold, silver and a few other commodity rocks' values and uses. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think Bitcoin represents something more fundamentally unique. But I'm not here to take away any of the merits of these, just to point out that Rubik cubes and MMT economic models are similar in their limited applications.
It only gets more and more fuzzy and actually obstructs not only research but also common-sense action
Agree. Recently, I was arguing something opposite when I heard somebody discussing this in a political context rather than scientific or logical. They were saying exactly what you are with regards to middle ground and progress. I guess they had a point there. Extremism on a political scale is equally unhelpful. I was trying to make the case that there are certain times and situations perhaps when you actually might need extreme action and reverse course. I guess I didn't make the case well, and the OP probably thought I was just trying to play devil's advocate.
I was just looking at the term 'fuzzy logic' as I kind of forgot what that pertained to (I have no math background) but thought it quite interesting again.
Fuzzy logic and vagueness
Modeling reasoning with vague predicates and propositions is often cited as the main motivation for introducing fuzzy logics. There are many alternative theories of vagueness, but there is a general agreement that the susceptibility to the sorites paradox is a main feature of vagueness. Consider the following version of the paradox: 10100 is a huge number. If n is a huge number, then n−1 is also huge. On the face of it, it seems not to be unreasonable to accept these two assumptions. By instantiating n with 10100 in and applying modus ponens ... we conclude that 10100−1 is huge. By simply repeating this type of inference we arrive at the unreasonable statement 0 is a huge number.
Yeah, there's a lot to be said for a common sense being under-rated IMO.
Interesting. I find it hard to disagree for the most part.
.. where it helps to reduce pollution and to keep on working on defensive measures
So, without a concise topic boundary, and if we just took this whole debate generally, I'd say I find truth often lies somewhere in the middle.
To narrow down on the stats and their implications, you'd naturally come to the conclusions that you do, that there's a massive perception problem. Let's just say 'for whatever reasons'.
I guess related to the sentence I quoted above, we could say somethings with a relative degree of certainty, even without specifics. For example.
Pollution. Is it real? Yes. Is it a problem? Quite possibly beyond simple undesirable cosmetic effects. How much of a problem? We're only just beginning to look at how certain materials might pose serious risks for the world and it's inhabitants (not just the occasional picture of a badger or a seal with it's nose stuck in a discarded plastic form.)
So what's the extent of problems and defensive measures?
Well, this is nothing new as even before plastics, for example, people saw the need to build all kinds of defensive measures against all kinds of natural and human threats or byproducts of those threats.
When I look the above dataset, I find it hard to really say much, conclusively, other than from the angle of the snapshot that the data provides. Like, what would you really be looking at if you zoomed out with accurate data on larger, much larger timescales. What would that data look like applied to a hypothetical, or even a real comparative set of data from other planets, galaxies.. possible lifeforms, environments.
It's all very inconclusive IMO. Sure, there are certain assumptions that might be held and considered, valuable data and conclusions, but really, do we know what we're talking about for sure, most f the time?
You should never compromise on your own notion or concept.
I just wanted to write something because I genuinely like it, If it was something I saw around town, I'd be very curious about what it is, where it came from. I like things that are representative of values but open to interpretation. Also, maybe I think more from a design brief perspective. Might be something your less concerned with, like, if this became (god forbid) corporate logo/identity, it would need to be able to used on merchandise or whatever. What I was saying about like a dark mode version, was more just me thinking about how things look on screen, when framed by black/white page.
I guess because I didn't see the original sketch, I just see more of a graphic image, rather than a piece of art in it's own right. When I've seen art at Bitcoin conferences, just feel that there's so much cool Bitcoin adjacent art. That's nice that it lends itself to design as I was saying above.
I wouldn't want to buy a hat or tee with any reference to Bitcoin for obvious reasons, but I also do. If you know what I mean?
That's cool. Don't get me wrong, I do like the original exactly as is.
Just it's so graphic and having seen some of your other graf, just wondered in my head about variations.
Like the way the eyes are quite piercing in that version.
forcing the rest of us to transact in insect based protein food stamp tokens while we are forced to mentally click on a pornographic AI enhanced advertisement stream that is nanowired to our retinas or pick cotton
So basically, the matrix meets facebook.
Nice work. Would this work as stencil?
If it was inverted, I'd like it x2, just because I'm a bit of a dick and refuse to look at bright things on my screen. If I was you, it'd be 'I will sign no Treaty, (insert expletive). But again, I'm just retarded that way.
dolphin3 tells me they 'typically offer mobile-first banking services to individuals and small businesses with features like account management, bill payments, money transfers, and investments.'
Every financial app I see now tends to offer a 'free' credit card, and then all the things you'd associate with credit cards. I feel it's pretty hard to distinguish any 'kind' of neobank. They all seem to be really interested in you either sharing data between other banks, switching to/from other banks and 'knowing more about me' as I seem to remember one cab-hailing app say.
Will they all just end up being everything apps that want your attention and data?
I work for the cold, soulless pieces of paper that I can withdraw from an ATM or occasionally is debited from my bank account, or to send home. The money I earn is in the form of currencies of the countries I work which I try to pool, in the hope that one day I can buy a home, build a small library of books and a space with tools, enjoy a humble existence, read and build to better myself.
I left my home country in the new millennium, once considered to be a country with relatively high living standards. These days, not so much due to demographic changes (continual importation of migrants) and corruption that has engendered the Marxism de jour that destroys the place through the erosion of living standards. The police there seem largely co-opted and serve the wishes of those that steal from the public and are diametrically opposed to the will of the majority of people who make up the country.
The only reason that a home is useful in this regard is to defend myself, my possessions and shelter from the dangers that have been imported into the country, and the lack of political and economic honesty of the ruling class. I didn't have any other option other than to leave family and friends who I grew up with and I miss dearly, and work and learn where I can.
But working for fiat currency and being forced to strategically migrate is the only way I have to achieve this objective. I'd love to volunteer and engage with other things I care more about, but unfortunately that's not currently an option. Some of the people I've worked with are amazing people, genuine, smart and principled, and that's a nice by-product, but really this is just a lucky coincidence that they are in the same position, working in meaningless roles, in order to raise a family, or perhaps for similar reasons as myself.
Agree. Not sure whether or not increased access to markets will be an advantage to customers, as much as allowing more trading volume that would be the main benefit to banks, presumably.
I may be wrong but I don't see calling out cbdcs and terrorism as comparable, i.e, as a Trojan horse or pretext to strip freedoms, but I question the motive, as politics is politics. IMO, a better comparison might be the use of the term 'pro-crypto' given to this US administration. I don't think I'd have much difficulty selling the idea here that shoe-horning the public into digital payments and away from cash is concerning for a host of reasons, my concern is nothing particular to the implementation of digitization, it's more how it evolves when smartphone payments become a prerequisite to functioning in daily life.
While we now have tech firms bridging the gap of facilitating digital payments via domestic commercial bank and e-commerce payments, using interoperable QR-based specs, I see the problem is more the lean towards the everything apps that ensues. Not only some of the security concerns mentioned in #458011 but also where everything apps have been introduced, and usage probably borders on the 90-100%, social apps vie for the same broad spectrum of social media, payments, credit, ID verification, resulting in emergent dominant everything apps, perhaps two, but usually one that captures the guts and feathers of the entire market.
I realize this is not a central bank-based, but ties to state regulation and control are already bound to these platforms, and central bank or government policy becomes much easier to enforce (like it or not.) I've not heard of Zelle nor Pix before this post, but I see the same dynamic in other regions. What's interesting to me is that some countries sill have strong physical cash usage side-by-side with digital payments, others are making huge steps to migrate away from (privacy preserving) physical cash.
I don't understand if Krug was being genuine (doubt it) by saying republicans fear people would prefer cbdcs to private banks. Where in the world has rolled out cbdcs and actually use them to a meaningful extent today? I don't think the average person can really visualize what the advantages and disadvantages would be in bypassing commercial banks and lenders, and I do wonder whether the whole argument on cbdcs is a kind of red-herring. I still remember when the term cbdc was coined (shortly after Bitcoin came into public consciousness) digital cash was being airdropped to early adopters. I question ethics of central banks for that reason alone.
The only applications of building a state banking app seems to be the potential to airdrop freshly minted fiat, the potential to restrict access to usage of any digital payment system, and to debit taxes automatically, most of which is now controlled effectively with a 90% adoption rate of payment platforms that are plugged into commercial banks, and regulated by states. All of Krugs petitions to some kind of base logic is laughable and fail to take into account incentives of stake-holders in the real world, which we all know and experience.
"the payment processors aren't going to stand up for our privacy rights."
.. because they are all state regulated anyway. Agree.