ETH/BTC reached 0.1515 in June 2017. This cycle it peaked at 0.08838 and it's currently at 0.07206.[1] If anyone in ETH multiplied their holdings by a number above 0.5, it had to be gambling on one of the small coins that has since crashed 95%+ (such as OP) and getting out before the music stopped. If you're chasing multiples, you can only end up lucky or burned. Slow and steady wins the race.
Yes, there were few weeks when ethbtc was higher, but that was over 4 years ago.
There were 6 months of free money during the second half of 2020 with three digit APR. Most active people in defi multiplied their eth holdings several times (4-6x). There was no risk because tokens to dump were received for free.
>Slow and steady wins the race.
No, it doesn't. Yield wins the race. This cycle had a once in a lifetime free money period. There's not making up for missing that. Current yields are single digit but still good.
Fortunately it appears ai will soon enough act as a modern version of God's judgment, which while still not perfect, should be significantly better than some random cop's gut feeling.
I may just be cynical, but I don't see any reason why AI judgement won't be the next cruentation. AI decisions are based purely on learned biases, which may be effectively equivalent to gut feelings. There will be many opportunities for AI-determined suspicions to be used as a determination of guilt in lieu of real evidence.
"The AI finds it likely that you committed the murder."
It doesn't have to be this way, but given the perpetual misunderstanding and misapplication of AI, I think it's likely to happen anyway.
Before that happens, the whole world would need to be under continual observation. Then we would have to realize that it always takes more people to observe the people than there are people to observe, and turn the eternal watch over to AI.
Then the AI wouldn't be saying, "I think it's likely you did this", it would be saying, "Here's the video of you doing this".
> Before that happens, the whole world would need to be under continual observation. Then we would have to realize that it always takes more people to observe the people than there are people to observe, and turn the eternal watch over to AI.
> Then the AI wouldn't be saying, "I think it's likely you did this", it would be saying, "Here's the video of you doing this".
Reality of what this video shows will be is much closer to: " we have some video(we are not sure if AI properly reconstructed low quality recording and then matched person accused of crime, example: changing letters in photocopies), does video shows real crime or it only looks like a crime from certain angle, it search data for crimes not for proofs of innocence. After all what stops people behind AI from over representing as criminals people with evil mustaches (consciously or not, doesn't matter), so at start it assigns them a higher score?
> Before that happens, the whole world would need to be under continual observation.
I don't see any reason that is a necessary precondition for an evolving reliance on AI judgement. Though obviously there are potential interactions between surveillance ubiquity and that.
> Then the AI wouldn't be saying, "I think it's likely you did this", it would be saying, "Here's the video of you doing this".
Crimes tend to have elements that cannot be shown on a video, but which might be deemed likely based on a video, like knowledge and intent.
So, it will exactly be “I think oy is likely that you did this”.
I don't know how I would feel about allowing AI to put humans in prison without incontrovertible proof.
Any black box thing, (that is, any system where raw data comes in and a result comes out without everyone involved fully understanding the process) should not have the authority to take a human's freedom from them of its own volition.
I would much rather utilize them as a Sherlock whose job is to assemble the evidence that is available and state their conclusions to the jury, who could then make their decision based off of the evidence.
The ai creates a video animating the way it thinks you did it, which adds a couple extra legs and an extra eye, but the jury is already biased to think the defendant is likely to have extra eyes and legs, so they accept the ais description
All those arguments reduce to "humans have a soul, computers don't, checkmate atheists". Ironically, soon AI will be able to generate articles arguing that AI can't ever think, automating yet another job.
Any model capable of executing a turing machine (given infinite resources, so in practice bounded of course) can emulate another program, even if inefficiently. GPT empirically can execute a simple vm. At best the 'wrong model' argument would have to point out that specific design collapses once the program to execute becomes too big - no matter how much compute/memory is available, but then, it's only a technical claim about one specific design.
This specific article has another problem - it handwaves the definition of consciousness. It has to do it, because any attempt to actually define necessarily either defeats the whole argument (it's some property of a computable system), or reduces it to a magical claim about an external soul.
Relying on constant insane returns isn't financial independence. Considering how many people are working to extract money from equities it's most likely luck.
Insane returns is one way to get to financial independence, because even if the edge exists, it's going to eventually disappear. You can boast about financial independence once you make enough to live the rest of your life from safe passive yield, after inflation, which in the current very low real rates environment requires a lot - maybe $3M as the bare minimum.
What you need to do is figure out the burn rate to sustain your family, figure out your safe withdrawal rate (e.g. 3.5%), then you can easily get amount of capital required.
A Mormon friend of mine, with 5 kids, spends less on food for his family than we do (family of 4) --he/his wife are just much better at spending on it. There are also factors like, it's possible to get a 3-4K sqft house for a very reasonable price & low taxes, vs. living in a tiny box in San Fransisco for 2x more.
Those historical returns are ridiculously optimistic. In fact stocks aren't great once you look globally. Imagine investing starting from 1900 Germany or Russia. In both cases you would be zeroed out. It's a form of survivorship bias to look at American stock markets only.
I think a 0% after-inflation return for a normal investor (ie. no specialized domain knowledge, no insider info) over the next several decades is already mildly optimistic.
The obsession with plastic recycling is due to human irrationality. We are driven to conserve material resources over hard to imagine energy because matter is tangible. This is a fallacy. Plastic is made from oil, and recycling plastic requires more energy than making new one, therefore recycling plastic is the wasteful route. Just burn it all, problem solved.
Recycling not being economical betrays this reality. It's simply insanity to recycle, unfortunately in most places it's legally forced.
The top 1% globally probably includes a good chunk of upper-middle class Americans (at least in the classic definition of upper middle class, maybe not in the informal “median income” sense that sometimes gets used). We like to point our fingers at private jets because they are particularly extravagant and we only need to take them away from a couple people, and they are a problem. But also heating McMansions and pushing around suburban SUVs ought to be avoidable.
Because they would be. Cultures aren't equal. If you disagree, then how do you feel about death penalty for homosexuality in countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran? It's their culture after all and should be respected?
Same for the Bacha-bazi custom in Afghanistan ("a custom in Afghanistan involving child sexual abuse by older men of young adolescent males or boys, called dancing boys, often involving sexual slavery and child prostitution").
The proper way to evaluate cultural practices is by looking at what society they create. Western culture is by no means perfect, but as a whole package - it's the best there is. So yes, they would be better.
I'd argue that sustainability (and then to a lesser degree, growth) is arguably the single most important value in any culture. Because the best of cultures that can't sustain itself will "lose" to the worst of cultures that can. The ideal of a culture, at least in my mind, is not one of a snapshot of hedonism or liberty, but of a long-term sustained healthy society.
Western culture already has driven fertility rates well below replacement. Alongside that we also have skyrocketing obesity rates, skyrocketing rates of mental illness and drug dependence/abuse, plummeting testosterone levels, the end of the Flynn Effect, governmental approval ratings approaching zero, and more. Our culture, in its current form, is not even remotely close to sustainable.
There has to be some meet in the middle between "Follow the ancient holy book, or die!" and "Let's hedonize ourselves out of existence." As both those extremes mostly feel like two opposite ends of a horse-shoe, to me.
In the 80s Iran had a fertility rate of 6+ and was one of the fastest growing countries in the world. So fast in fact that it scared their political leadership, so they 'pulled a China', a much less well known one. [1] They started putting out massive propaganda against large families, introduced widespread birth control measures (and mandates), and so on.
And, like China, it worked too well. Their birth rate fertility rate dropped from above 6 to below 3 in less than a decade. But then it kept falling, to the point of unsustainability. They realized they'd made a huge mistake so they began efforts to try to reverse it. Yet, like China, that has generally been a complete failure.
This is one of the most insidious things about fertility rates. They're not terribly difficult to send low, even to extinction trajectory low. But getting them back up is something that nobody has yet managed to achieve.
Which apparently isn't all that old. And you know, which the Taliban hates. A lot of the evil things the Taliban did (and do!) were justified in outrage over sexual violence.
I’m increasingly tired of this myth that we must treat all cultures equally and agree with your point.
Sure - if we’re talking about Finland vs Iceland or something like that where people are 95% on the same page. But other cultures have the abusive practices you mention above - and worse. China used to have foot-binding. FGM is pretty common in Africa right now (no jokes about that in the latest Black Panther though).
A position of radical tolerance is tactically convenient when the view that you hold is unpopular; Moral Majority crusading is convenient when it's popular.
