For many autistic people, they prefer it this way. Eg avoiding person-first language and being out on social media and also part of this "romanticization", right?
The "smart" part is no longer interrupting your workflow with an addicting dopamine trap. Fewer interruptions → more deep work → more progress with less total time spent.
Similar idea to work "theming". It lowers context switches and let's you accomplish more.
Different strokes: I prefer it in the PR, with a lot of detail, with commits that are very granular and just explain what they do. PR descriptions should have all the why, test cases, pictures, etc.
Not a fan of over-financialization, but... if trading is propagating market signals to people who otherwise wouldn't have them, it should have some positive externalities?
You have that issue without cryptocurrencies as well, you'd just be relying on the kindness of users rather than crypto incentives.
You always need a way to hold nodes accountable in a system like this, or it'll be rife with manipulation — because there's already a strong, innate incentive to manipulate results. Today, we call that industry "SEO".
What you don't understand is that "I don't trust others" is not a terminal statee I'd rather build trust again, create human connections, or rather, put them in front because there are always connections; nothing works if you trust noone.
Building a societal system where you know you can rely on your peers, you build together, is a more joyful, more resilient, more ecological and also more realistic way of building a thriving society than distrust-by-default that cryptocurrencies live for.
Bad actors exist and there must be some process for identifying and dealing with them, but they are not the majority of people and so probably don't have to be the first, last, primary, and only consideration at all times.
IE living in a bomb shelter is not a life worth living, even though yes you will be safe from bombs and theives.
Exactly. If I'll have to depend on someone else anyway (and I will), might as well build trust because a life being cautious about everything and everyone is not worth living. Only those with already vast amounts of money can afford it because they trust (heh) other people working for them to taue care of that, but to non-jokingly propose it as a standard for everyone is a dystopia.
Your current fiat currency is not based on love and trust. Its Proof-of-World-Hegemony which puts crypto based consensus mechanisms to shame in terms of how not based on love and trust it is.
Sure it is. When someone gives me a dollar, I have no idea if it's fake or stolen.
That sort of thing only gets handled very indirectly and much later and after a bad actor does their bad thing enough times for the surrounding greater population of good actors to notice a pattern.
The value of, for example, the dollar is not based on your trust, at least not at the first order. It's based on the economic and military power backing it up.
Absolutely it is: it is based on the trust we all have that the government will do whatever it takes to guarantee the value of a dollar. Me being able to commerce with you in dollars and not, say, in old zimbabwean dollars rests on the shared assumptions that the US State can and will be there.
We're playing with words now but the power of the dollar does not arise from your faith in it, it arises from the nations around the world that view it as a stable medium of trade. This stability is based on the employment and perception of ability to employ hedgemonic hard and soft power. The US isn't going anywhere because it has the guns, bullets, bombs, allies, trade, and diplomacy to stay in the top spot. Your faith is a product of that system, not a cause of it. Your faith won't build aircraft carriers.
We're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about why the dollar will be stable (and I totally agree with you there). I'm talking about why you and I can do business in dollars, and that was the origin of the discussion: bitcoins are made for people who can't trust each other. With fiat currency we still don't trust each other, but we both trust a common third-party, and have good reason to trust it, at least on the "it will be there" side.
Rather, a common belief is that over a long time horizon, the debasement of USD will hurt buying power, and that BTC and friends will benefit from that.
Not such an oddball belief if you look at the change in the value of a dollar over the last century.
You're getting down voted for sounding partisan I suspect, but regardless of the politics, you're absolutely right. That bill was a huge change across the US tax system.
Yeah, it’s an election year so even a literal statement of fact is going to be downvoted by some people. Hopefully at some point they’ll have an epiphany about whether they should self-identify with a party so strongly when an accurate descriptions of its actions feels like an attack, but I’m not as optimistic about that as I used to be.
It’s a partisan statement since you only mention the upper tax bracket and not that it also slashed taxes for the lowest one completely and reduced them for basically everyone while making changes to a ton of other things (like child tax credits) as well.
You’re over simplifying and singling out your pet political issue in an effort to sway opinion to your political leaning. If you had just said it was due to those tax cuts you likely wouldn’t have been downvoted.
Most of the need for the reconciliation was the cut to the top tax bracket, where most of the the tax revenue comes from (e.g., the top 1% of earners pay 42% of the taxes [0]). So focusing on that bracket seems valid in this context.
The reason the author I quoted said that is that most of the cost comes from the top. If we were taking on a couple trillion in extra debt, that seems like a rather minimal benefit to give ⅔ of it to the richest people.
