Bin Ladin might have traded before the attack, it's possible. But that has nothing to do with the yield curve inversion as indicator of approchong economic downturn.
Elon Musk explicitly waived his right to due diligence. You're right about these things being expected, but Elon can't be hampered by such standard conventions.
The whole not needing an a&a database part? That’s the onchain part. You don’t need to track authz as it’s just real-time lookups on blockchain state.
Rather than maintain and protect a local set of usernames and hashes, you let anyone in who can present signature and address. Then server side you check that address has some NFT. Done. No hashes or usernames or anything.
Let’s say I’m a saas vendor that has some web product, it doesn’t need user profiles as such, just gated access. Without need to take credit card payments, one can sell a token that provides access, and know that the api to query its status is going to be stable and eternal. It simplifies a particular use case that I think works.
They don’t need the generate it, the user supplies it with the client side web3 wallet. They don’t need to maintain a blockchain, they can use various portable apis to query it.
Ok now how do I do it with storage in some eternal way that doesn’t required a trusted third party. And not having to maintain any kind of session or user state mapping between my app and the oauth2 or saml provider.
Ya know, about 14 years ago something happened where we could maintain these eternal data structures with rules around state mutation. Humanity is only learning the power of such structures a decade later. There are very much unique problems being solved here and you are missing the dark forest for the legacy trees.
The user can read the source code of a wallet and they know it's never going to change on them or have a service block them, and there are many options available which they can switch between at any time.
It's about user empowerment and not letting other entities have any control over any aspect of it.
The problem with that messaging is it’s hard to take back. Even in 2022, I have straight friends who regularly have unprotected sex with random women and don’t think HIV applies to them because they’re not gay.
I'm a gay man, and I'm on PrEP because I know I'm at higher risk of HIV. If I were straight and (1) neither I nor my partners used IV drugs, (2) neither I nor my partners had any visible STDs and I got checked for STDs regularly and (3) I were circumcized, to be honest I'd be fine having unprotected sex with random women because my chance of acquiring HIV would be exceedingly, exceedingly low. My chance of acquiring other STDs, especially Chlamydia, would be much higher, but if I were getting checked regularly it seems like a reasonable risk for a treatable disease.
I am on prep too but still there’s a difference between consciously accepting a certain level of risk vs just assuming the risk is nonexistent because of poorly communicated information
> In my personal view, it would be stupid to hike to 10% since that will also cut off the needed supply response: this will decapitate energy, farm, and housing expansion while at the same time decimating all forms of wealth. But there is a possibility depending on how trigger happy the fed becomes.
The only reason Volcker managed to bring down inflation is because he was willing to actually do what needed to be done. If borrowing money is cheaper than inflation, why would anybody not just continue to borrow money indefinitely? The Federal Reserve can fight inflation or it can fight a recession; it cannot do both simultaneously.
You have to decide which is a bigger problem: a recession, or inflation. The notion that you can walk a tight rope between the two is disconnected from reality. And while you continue to make inflation worse, you only make the inevitable recession worse. Tick tock.
Lots of assumption buried in your comment/worldview about what's actually causing inflation. Is it actually just a slow accretion of growing costs for resources, distribution? Is it companies deciding that now would be a great time to increase prices "because inflation" and thus get ahead of the nascent wage growth that was threatening to take off post-pandemic? Clearly it's a mixture of the two but the implications are completely different if its 90/10 vs 10/90.
Honestly, that's really not that important for what I was saying, because we're talking about the Fed. The Federal Reserve can choose to fight inflation or it can choose to inflate assets, and that lies on a spectrum. The "why" of inflation isn't nearly as important as the severity of it. If inflation is at 10% you're not going to debate it before doing something about it - that just allows the situation to fester instead of taking initiative. The reason we're in this situation where inflation is still getting worse, a year after being told not to worry about it, is because it's politically untenable to actually try to fix the problem. Meanwhile inflation continues to worsen while we make symbolic gestures about fighting it.
Yes, understanding what's causing inflation matters. I'm not saying it doesn't. But when you have a crisis, you want to focus on mitigation first and then root causing it after the situation is averted.
Also you mention two possible causes of inflation. Limited resources and distribution, and companies deciding to raise prices because they can. What about the Fed printing money like crazy, flooding the M2 money supply? That's the one that's relevant to this conversation.
The Fed can't do much at all to stop corporate-controlled price increases. Increasing interest rates makes it more expensive to borrow money, but that has little impact on a company choosing to bump its retail prices by 25%.
M2 is only relevant to a point. The increase in the money supply does not, in and of itself, cause any change in prices at all. Individuals and corporations have to make explicit decisions to respond to what they can see of the M2 effect, and none of these decisions are a law of nature. Rents don't have to go up just because M2 grew. Landlords sense that they can, and then they choose to do so. They could choose not to do so, too, but they don't because we're taught that this would be irrational, or something.
> Individuals and corporations have to make explicit decisions to respond to what they can see of the M2 effect, and none of these decisions are a law of nature.
The law is called supply and demand. If there are more dollars and the same amount of resources, the value of a dollar goes down.
Inflation is still going up because there’s a war between Ukraine and Russia. This has caused food and energy prices to skyrocket. The Fed can raise rates to 69% but it’s still not going to cause (say) the grain in Odessa to make its way to people’s stomachs.
Is a certain amount of rate increase justified? Yes, you don’t want an inflation spiral to develop. Beyond that, we are going to have to live with a certain amount of inflation until the situation in Eastern Europe normalizes and the supply chains normalize after COVID. And the interest rates should be kept on the lower side so that companies can still finance solutions to this mess.
If it was just one item you would expect that consumers would cut back elsewhere. Instead we see that they can demand more wages, and companies can demand higher prices even if they are decoupled from wheat.
The latter is only possible if there is too much money in the system, the signal about wheat production gets lost. As the feds money printer doesn’t work evenly, those who are closer to it get more money. I can only speculate that eventually, like any corruption, the effect is to diminish productivity in the real economy in favor of a special class.
> ...until the situation in Eastern Europe normalizes and the supply chains normalize after COVID.
They won't "normalize" though (imho), as the reason is not really COVID anymore, it is China gaining ground and trying to do as much damage to the western economy as possible.
You're assuming the hospitals don't all do this. You're basically discussing market dynamics with a legalized cartel.
This is like when people point out problems with fiat currency which are very real, and then people suggest theoretical solutions from cryptocurrency. It doesn't actually help solve the problem in any meaningful way, and you are living in an alternate reality from the problem space we are discussing.
People say it's impossible to negotiate prices at modern grocery chains. They only had brand name lactose supplements. The manager gave me a hard time about it, I asked about a price matching policy, shrugged, and let me pay the generic price. I'm sharing this anecdote because I don't think people try hard enough and you might be surprised if you do. You won't win every time, but try asserting some authority.
By assuming markets are so rigged against you, it discourages people from even trying. Price discovery can only happen if you attempt to be firm. If you'll roll over instantly, then sure, they can do as they wish.
I've had the misfortune of suing insurance companies in the past; I'm very aware of how the system works. You are technically correct. It's just that you're grossly exaggerating exceptions as though they will ever be useful to a majority of people.
I don't know if the comment was edited or not, but I hope you're not claiming "vigilante" is a slur. I looked up the definition of slur just to be sure and you are technically correct, but I'd say you're abusing language far more than the person you're responding to.
Editing a comment after the fact in a way that deprives a reply of its original context and makes it look stupid is, in most cases, a dick move. I think most users understand that. It doesn't make a difference whether the reply was by a moderator or not.
- Getting snarky because they did the reasonable thing and got rid of the slur after it was pointed out
- Calling said user a dick. If Karen is a misogynistic slur, How is dick not moreso misandristic? I realize you said "dick move", but that's functionally the same. Saying something was a "c?nt move" or a "n????r move" would be tantamount to calling someone a c?nt or n????r.
- Because maybe it made your comment "look stupid"
Jawdropping desecration of the guidelines. You need a vacation.
In most of the spaces I frequent, an edit to change objectionable wording after being called on it is acceptable. Since you've made it plain that that sort of approach doesn't work here, I'll keep that in mind.
Technology is only neutral in the sense that guns, nuclear weapons, and neurotoxins are neutral. No, not all technology is the same, and much of it is evil. This loosely falls into the same fallacy of "it can either work or fail, so there's a 50% chance" - you are wildly misrepresenting the space in order to project a stance of neutrality.
I really think what you're saying is just something engineers tell themselves to feel better about what they do. I hear it more often from people at FAANG, defense contractors, and other morally ambiguous places than anywhere else.
Also, if you're the guy building a tool that's oppressing someone, you are the guy building the means to oppress someone. There's nothing neutral about that.
Using a gun on another human to defend my family from immediate threat. Moral.
Using a gun on another human to inflict harm on an innocent. Immoral.
Thus "tech is neutral, usage determines morality".
HOWEVER
what if we are in a society where using guns is the normal way to resolve conflict? Where everyone is required to carry a gun at all times and be prepared to use it to defend their family? Is the tech still neutral when it becomes a cornerstone of every interaction?
Well a lot of people would argue that guns are neutral, at least.
But that aside, I do mostly agree. It's nonsense to help produce something that you know will be misused and then absolve yourself of responsibility.
The problem is not that people like this crap, it's that building and selling it is absurdly profitable and people like money. I don't know how you address such a thing other than to have government step in and block it (see GDPR, tracking cookies etc)
> I think if you succeeded in making a game that successfully simulated the experience of poverty, it would be extremely unfun to play.
I don't think you're someone that plays many videogame simulations, as the whole point is making something fun that's inherently boring in real life. There are so many popular simulators for famously mind-numbing jobs: farming, janitorial services (and further niches within this including powerwashing), driving for hours on an empty desert road (both as a trucker or as someone that's just bored), and more.
Here's a great game that simulates trying to survive in an imaginary Soviet country. You pretty much always die, are coerced to murder people as part of your job, and usually watch as your family starves or freezes to death despite your best efforts to keep them alive. And you know what? I honestly think it's one of the best videogames ever made.
If the goal is to actually present the experience of poverty, then yeah it would be unfun to play by design. I wouldn't want that job in Arstotzka either, even if the game is fun to play. I'd also never want to be a truck driver, but I love the idea of doing it in a videogame.
Uh, powerwashing, (sand,dry ice, etc)-blasting, is actually fun in real life. If I could get a job doing only that, I would totally do it. Janitorial work is actually pretty engaging and fun, it's the having to do it EVERY DAY for almost nothing and being disrespected and socially maligned for it that sucks! Driving is also fun!
And there’s a whole range of games intentionally meant to not be fun - there are sad games, like That Dragon, Cancer. There are meditative games, games that will make you angry, and more. Video games are art!
The person making this poverty simulator game could add a fun ludonarrative angle to it like Papers Please - or it could aim to be realistic and encourage empathy for those suffering. This War of Mine is an example that strikes a balance between the two.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503645#metadata_info_ta...