Eh there's plenty of work that needs to be done no one is going to give you shit for doing. Buy a shovel & hi-vis vest and dredge a neglected ditch or something. Getting paid the $110 isn't the important part of this exercise.
The human mind is the product of a brutal optimization function over a billion years old. That process of optimization has extended into the operation of the human mind itself. The human mind itself is an optimization machine. It can always imagine a better way to do things. Don't let the fact that there is a better way to do a thing stop you from doing the thing. There is always a better way.
Both lost significant deposits from crypto blow-ups, reducing their liquidity and tanking their stock prices [1]. That left them uniquely vulnerable to both perceptions [2] and rates (as they sold the short-dated, liquid, low-duration assets first to plug the crypto hole).
"The bank’s digital-asset clients represented more than a fifth of its deposit base, and Signature’s executives said in December it would work to shrink that without leaving the space entirely. Earlier this month, the company reported it had pushed out $1.5 billion in funds from crypto platforms in the year’s first two months, while taking in $682 million in regular deposits. By then it was touting all the ways it wasn’t handling crypto in a presentation.
At first I thought no it must be lognormal since productivity must be at least marginally more than zero, but then I realized that's definitely not true: I know developers who definitely have negative net productivity on the team.
as a 1-2 (depending on proj). I try to bring them up and try to help them. But some people either do not gel into the group or they are hopeless. But I hold out the eternal flame I can help them be better!
Yeah. And I think 10x coders are probably as rare as professional sportsmen or members of a concert orchestra. They exist, but does your business need them?
Of course it would be nice if coders that rare were paid like pro-athletes...
If we assume alien life in the universe is predatory and seeks to consume other life forms, and since the universe allows detection from other species over infinite distances and time scales, we would expect life in the universe to either be totally undetectable or else be consumed by life that is totally undetectable.
That's not a great starting assumption. How would the economics of travelling hundreds or thousands of light years in order to "consume" (whatever that means) other life forms work out? What is the benefit? How would it be worth the investment?
If you are talking about a dark forest then it is more opf the idea that any other sufficiently advanced civilization would simply destroy you as soon as you are known to them rather than attempting to consume any potential resources you have as that isn't economical. The most economical thing could be as simple as sending a small object at light speed through your sun to cause a supernova.
This eliminates you as a potential threat and you have no chance to use other limited resources outside of that system.
While your main point stands, I doubt that crashing even a moderately sized planetoid into a star at any achievable speed would do much to that star. It definitely wouldn't cause a normal supernova.
You might be able to produce some nasty radiation/ionized crap/relativistic debris that would be unpleasant for that greenish scum clinging to some of the planets, but it'd be a really expensive way to do even that.
Sure, if you get close enough to C, you can deliver as much energy as you want, but you're probably going to use the energy of several stars to get a small object going fast enough to deposit a really destructive amount of energy into a single star.
At least as far as our current understanding of physics it is probably not possible to accelerate an object to the actual speed of light, but who knows if there is some kind of universe hack that we don't know of.
maybe not a planet but a mini blackhole tugged by a small ship at high velocity to crash into your sun and turn it into a proper black-hole with accretion disc and the works would do some serious damage to you as a species.
personally I'd go for something like a nanobot gray goo thing that infects & turns everything it touches in a given gravity well. then send over a bunch of ships to wipe out remaining stragglers.
Bold and odd. I read Under the Skin. Excellent and innovative sci fi, but nobody goes that far and spends that much even for a Kobe beef burger. Even here on bloody barbaric Earth, weapons exist mainly to keep trade from being disrupted and the largest military has an environmental compliance department.
>The real single reason for which I believe that all this will come tumbling down is cause of the fact that all this is falsely hyped as being something better than its predecessors but in reality it is not.
How so? If you're saying that this is the one single reason, then you have to support it with evidence.
> How so? If you're saying that this is the one single reason, then you have to support it with evidence.
This feels like asking someone to prove a negative by providing singular examples.
I’m still looking for an example of a web3 product that is more usable, more beneficial, and more attractive than the centralized equivalent. So far the only real benefits appear to be decentralized censorship resistance and, arguably, the unnecessary tokenization that allows early adopters to get wealthy based on speculation of future functionality.
They really don't. Not every document has to include all things relevant back to the big bang. That bit in particular has been discussed by lots of people for quite a while, including a ton of posts right here, so if you just fell off the turnip truck and are truly unaware of the web3 critiques, a little searching should set you straight. Heck, I'll even give you a place to start: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
Yeah, 'Days since a car did not crash into another car. hence why all cars are dangerous and will never take off over horse and carriages'. - Car skeptic.
By now there should have been a worldwide 100% complete total ban on crypto a long time ago, just like the usage of Tor. Why didn't this happen? It's simply due to the fact that it is close to impossible to ban all of it. Regulators and crypto skeptics already know this, and instead both crypto supporters and skeptics will compromise and enforce regulations on cryptocurrencies, exchanges, etc.
Hence, only some cryptocurrencies, exchanges will survive past regulations and will continue to be widely used. I'm afraid crypto is here to stay like it or not.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not interested in arguing the point. I'm just saying that the point has been argued aplenty, anybody insisting that someone must spoon-feed them the arguments right now is not asking for something reasonable. Instead, they come across like somebody looking to argue. And we all know how tiresome that can be.
There's little indication the crypto ecosystem is inclined to do the same. See, for example, Tether's continued core role despite years of lying about audits and getting caught cooking the books for their attestations.
That's not a good enough critique of a new tech. Applicable once it has reached maturity, but Ethereum and EVM smart contracts are relatively very new. If they're still slow and expensive in 2025, Web3 will rightly deserve to be forgotten and abandoned.
Crypto's been around for over a decade dude. How many decades do you want?
Why would I ever build a business around an Ethereum smart contract when I could just write a normal contract, and then I know the courts will enforce it even if one of my business associates tries to pull a fast one?
If it's about the precise coding of constraints and all that, you can easily write a legal contract that specifies that the piece of code should be followed. Ask wall street derivatives traders if they have any issues with making paper legal contracts arbitrarily mathematically complex. It works fine for them.
Crypto has been around for decades but most of the tech we now call "Web3" is very nascent. The ERC-721 standard used by most NFTs was first proposed in 2018, and didn't even reach technical maturity until 2019.
And yes, you can write normal contracts and get the courts to enforce it. But what if your customers are in India or Vietnam or Tibet? Under which jurisdiction will you attempt to enforce the contract?
The entire critique rests on the thesis that the world will always be the way it is - dominated by a handful of western (mostly American) corporations who will get to dictate what billions of people in the rest of the world consume, create, and share.
The reality is that the non-western part of the internet is already larger, will grow even larger, and it needs tools and products that are built for its scale and diversity. Whether that's Web3 or Web2 or Web2500, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that more and more countries will seek to yank back control from western corporations (like India making its own national mobile app store).
I, for one, will cheer on anything that challenges the FAANG oligopoly.
A so-called 'smart contract' is not a replacement for a contract. Just because you call something a contract doesn't mean it is. The same applies to 'decentralised finance'. It's not finance unless it can do financing, and defi can't.
Absolutely! 100%, twice over. What a thing is is real. What a thing could be is limited only by one's imagination, and my imagination with regard to crypto has been burned to the tune of $1.7 trillion as of May, 2022[0].
If you'd started with the disclosure of your money-colored sunglasses, you'd have saved everybody here the time of reading your comments.
cryptocurrency has no credibility with respect to "what could be". Cryptocurrency enthusiasts are full of hype and bluster with nothing to show for it except a massive ecosystem of wasteeful scams, theft, and fraud.
Well, obviously, we're discussing facts right? In a world of fantasy pigs might fly, but I don't know what is the point of bringing this up in this discussion.
1) To prevent imposters. We already saw how this became a big problem with the blue checkmark fiasco.
2) I made it a practice to delete most of my tweets within a week, so there are only about 3000 tweets remaining. A lot of those are referenced by external links that I don't want to break. Some of my tweets have even appeared in news media stories. So it's about preservation of the web rather than preservation of Twitter itself.
