Long-term, I think it's legit. A few big-name artists and other popular figures (athletes, actors, etc.) will take advantage, and use it as another income source. It's pretty convenient to immediately get a large payday by selling a unique asset (think of an autographed copy), while also being able to mass distribute and sell it at scale. For example, most people don't know that rookie cards for NBA players can go for well over a million dollars. Same idea here, except it is hosted online and cryptographically proven.
In the short-term, definite mania. Relatively unknown artists are getting ridiculous amounts of money, several magnitudes more than they get on the open market with a private commission, because the supply of artists that are currently active in this market is dwarfed by the number of rich crypto speculators that are throwing money around, trying to make a profit.
That's not the best example. In retrospect, AOL using its inflated stock to buy Time Warner was genius, probably the best thing AOL management could have done for shareholders.
I'm currently looking for a lawyer to pursue a lawsuit against Coinbase. It's been over a year, and I still haven't received my bitcoin cash, which was previously in a multi-signature account at the time of the split. I had tried to retrieve my bitcoin before the split, but it took several months because of a delay on Coinbase's part. Coinbase has failed to act despite sending multiple messages over the past year, and they have recently become completely unresponsive.
If anybody is interested in joining the lawsuit, please message me to see if we could join efforts.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this paperwork. Could you point me in the right direction?
Its been over a year since I first asked for my BCH (in fact, I asked to receive my bitcoin from the multi-signature account months before that, but it was delayed due to technical issues with Coinbase's system at the time). Coinbase's agents initially told me that the engineers would eventually work on the issue, and I took them at their word.
However, I've waited for more than a year (far beyond a reasonable timeline), and they have gone radio silent since my message to them over 2 months ago.
I've only recently started looking into taking steps to find a lawyer and actually bring Coinbase to court.
Edit: I will probably file a CFTC complaint in the coming days. Not sure how helpful it will be though.
There is a long list of people who have been scammed by coinbase and the many other exchanges. I had about 12 btc in a bittrex (another "safe" us based exchange) account that I signed up for with a pseudonym. Then one day around the time btc was at $19k they decided to lock my account until I give them a selfie showing my passport and other scans of id. They know this is impossible and will not let me change my basic details (citing some sentence in their ToS and how they are trying to protect me). I went the lawyer route but it turns out there is nothing you can do legally if wording in the ToS says any deposits belong to them, they are not responsible for anything, can't be sued etc. Also no one really cares about bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies in the legal sense. So good luck trying to get your bch. This turns out to be a double edge sword because since then I have made use of some of the exploitable bugs in several cryptocurrency wallets held on exchanges and have transferred back the amount I lost plus much more. Didn't even bother to use a proxy or anything because I know there is nothing that anyone can do about it, go ahead and send the internet police to my house maybe that way I can finally get in contact with them to investigate the btc that was stolen from me.
In Coinbase’s multi-sig system, there are three keys: a user key (which I have), a shared encrypted key (which is encrypted with a password that you can access on Coinbase.com), and Coinbase’s user key.
Without going into too much detail, I misplaced the shared seed password, and needed to withdraw the bitcoin with Coinbase’s user key. Coinbase had an issue with the multi-sig system at the time though that prevented it from providing its seed, so it took several months (during which the split occurred) before they sent me my BTC. However, I’m still missing my BCH (which corresponds to the same address), and need Coinbase’s seed to receive the BTC. I guess I could try to brute-force my user seed due to my password patterns, but that’s a last resort, since my BTC has already been sent.
Anyways, I recently called and got through to Coinbase, and the agent told me they will respond with more information over the next week. I’m putting any legal action on hold for the time being as a result.
In Coinbase’s multi-sig system, there are three keys: a user key (which I have), a shared encrypted key (which is encrypted with a password that you can access on Coinbase.com), and Coinbase’s user key.
Without going into too much detail, I misplaced the shared seed password, and needed to withdraw the bitcoin with Coinbase’s user key. Coinbase had an issue with the multi-sig system at the time though that prevented it from providing its seed, so it took several months (during which the split occurred) before they sent me my BTC. However, I’m still missing my BCH (which corresponds to the same address), and need Coinbase’s seed to receive the BTC. I guess I could try to brute-force my user seed due to my password patterns, but that’s a last resort, since my BTC has already been sent.
Anyways, I recently called and got through to Coinbase, and the agent told me they will respond with more information over the next week. I’m putting any legal action on hold for the time being as a result.
The large social media sites (Facebook and Twitter), along with the large internet giants (Google and Amazon), are already skating on thin ice to avoid being classified as systemically important utilities and monopolies. The moment they overstep, expect the Republican party to strike back quickly and harshly to more forcibly regulate them, and I'm sure the internet giants will work hard to avoid that outcome.
I never bought into the theory, but I don’t think this is a good proof. I won’t pretend to understand the scientific details of their argument, but it breaks down if you assume that the creators live in a universe that does not follow the same physical laws as ours. Our universe may be simplified (possibly by necessity) and could be incapable of creating full recursive simulations of worlds as complex as our own, but that says nothing about the original universe that its based in.
Like any arguments about the existence of a higher being, it is impossible to prove that a higher being that doesn’t want to be found doesn’t exist. Just choose whichever theory you find to be more convenient, and live your life to the best of your ability.
In addition, this doesn't really prove that the "simulation" can't use extremely aggressive "level of detail" culling, only simulating such intensive things like the quantum Hall effect when it directly effects the events of the simulation, or when a particularly curious simulatee decides to measure it. When the simulation can afford to gloss over such intensive details, it could use some much less expensive approximation, and we would never be any wiser.
Same thing with the uncertainty principle: electrons are only an approximation until we take a good look at one!
If it's assumed that the "creators" live in a universe that does not follow the same physical laws as ours, that means the "creators" have the ability to run simulations of universes that are arbitrarily different from their own. In that case the chance that they chose a universe of our type to simulate, out of all the possibilities, is vanishingly small, and thus so is the likelihood that we are living in a simulation.
This seems like a strange argument. Suppose that the creators created some simulation. This argument would apply equally no matter which simulation parameters they choose.
When they do simulate one, wouldn't the entities in that simulated environment make that exact same argument, and be wrong? If there are now two universes, that one and the real one, you've got a 50:50 chance. And I think we can rely on super-universes to simulate "interesting ones". Look at Greg Egan's works. Somewhere in the Super Universe, there is a Super Greg Egan saying "Imagine if quantum computers didn't work. What would that look like? Wow, they wouldn't be able to solve this kind of problem: in my novels, the protagonists will have to invent some kind of computation, and then they will run into this kind of problem and call it NP-hard. Poor bastards." And then some kid will read Super Egan's book and simulate, and here you are arguing it can't happen, because "random".
You don't have enough information to conclude anything about the simulator's universe just because they thought of this one. Consider wakamoleguy's argument about Pacman above: Pacman could apply that same logic to conclude our world is like his, but the simulation's rules just don't impose such strong constraints on the simulator.
"A new report, by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of the Hamilton Project, looked at the decline in marriage rates over the last 50 years and found a strong connection to income. Dwindling marriage rates are concentrated among the poor — the very people whose living standards would be most improved by having a second household income."
"Whatever the case, the concentration of marriage among the richest Americans is amplifying the increase in income inequality."
Yes, Peterson must have read that exact article because the wording he used was almost verbatim. The problem is that he is convinced that this is somehow a new phenomenon in the context of European society going back to Roman times, which is what his lecture was about. The study is about the United States going back to 1970. It is extremely ignorant of Peterson to make that generalization.
It's not an ethical failure because most of the participants understand that it is high risk/reward. That is why most start-up firms offer equity to their employees, and it is almost impossible for a new startup to borrow debt from banks (unless its personally guaranteed, or extremely expensive) before it has gained traction with its business model.
On the other hand, governments are perceived to be reliable borrowers, so they can receive low interest rate loans and are expected to repay their debt. There is not really a way for governments to issue equity like companies, so if governments become lackadaisical about paying their debts, then we should expect their loans to become much more expensive as well, and this could aggravate the financial distress of many high indebted public entities that are already struggling to pay the bills.
Puerto Rico bonds were paying 8.7% when US Treasuries paid about 2%. I'd say that any competent investor knows perfectly well that Puerto Rico might well not honor the bonds.
> this could aggravate the financial distress of many high indebted public entities that are already struggling to pay the bills.
Governments don't make payments at adjustable-interest rates. If sovereign borrowing rates rise, because the financial markets decide that sovereigns have a higher rate of default then they thought before, this doesn't affect outstanding debt - only the ability to get more.
Most governments don't receive loans with adjustable rates, but they plan their budgets with the expectation that they can refinance their debt once their loans mature. Most governments have regular debt maturities that they must meet, and they would be in big trouble if they can't refinance those loans.
It is also important to separate local governments from the sovereign federal government. The federal government is allowed to print money to cover its debts, which dramatically reduces the concern among creditors that it may default. Local governments have no such option, however; they can only address their deficit by reducing spending or raising taxes. Both options are politically unpopular (hence why most politicians do nothing and pass the buck to their successors), and may be counterproductive because the local citizens can just pack up and move if taxes are increased, or if public services deteriorate.
Edit: I forgot to mention that the most attractive way to raise government revenue is to actually attract more productive citizens to move there and increase the tax base (aka how California managed to dig itself out of its immediate financial hole). However, this is obviously very difficult to achieve in practice.
Yes, that is true. Governments typically don't pay off the principal on their loan - more specifically, as soon as the loan matures, they take out another loan.
This is not a problem if you've got some 30-year bonds maturing (As a dollar borrowed 30 years ago is trivial to pay off today), but this is a big problem if most of your debt is in the form of rolling, 1-year, or 3-year bonds.
This is still quite different from a mortgage you need to renegotiate every 5 years, or where the interest rate is pegged to prime + X%.
True, I don't look at it as an ethical failure either way. I am saying, however, that the public/federal government have an interest in maintaining the perception that that is a one-off and state/local governments are reliable borrowers. If a string of bankruptcies happen in a short time window, this could quickly erode the perception that state governments are reliable, and negatively impact many other states that are struggling and need low-interest financing just to pay the bills.
For anybody who has taken a look at the balance sheets of public entities, it is shocking how poorly capitalized many of these local governments actually are, and how aggressive some of their financial assumptions are (with low interest rates and 50% of their capital held in debt, a 8% assumed rate of return is extremely aggressive, and they would need financial rock-stars to achieve this at their scale). If investors are spooked, then interest rates could spike for many other government loans, and cause contagion among local government entities that would eventually require the federal government to intervene.
The belief that "our cars used to last much longer, manufacturers are screwing us" is bullshit. I'm not sure if people are looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, or if there's severe selection bias (people only notice the 40 year old car, not recognizing that it only represents >1% of the vehicles produced at the time, and has received a fortune in repairs and maintenance costs), but the data is clear, our cars are better and last much longer than they do in the past. Just look at the average age of the vehicle fleet:
There are short-term blips in this data when new vehicle sales surge (or vice-versa), but the average age of vehicles hit a record high of almost 12 years last year, and the long-term trend is clear: our vehicles last much longer than they do in the past. There has also been a population surge in vehicles over 15 years of age, which has been a significant positive secular trend for numerous parts manufacturers and repair shops in the industry, and the increased complexity of the vehicle fleet (more parts that repair shops need quick access to), which has pushed numerous players in the automotive supply chain to invest more in their distribution infrastructure. Cars have become more complex, but the parts in the vehicles also fail much less frequently than they did in the past (though many now integrate more parts and cost more than they have in the past).
I did a bunch of research on the automotive sector for my last job, and it's striking how laymen's views are completely contrary to what is going on in the industry. I don't know much about the other appliance markets, but I wonder if there is a similar misperception issue in the other markets.
As for the short life-cycles in new technology like smartphones, is that really so terrible? My current smartphone is much better than the last one I bought in 2014, and miles better than the first smartphones that were in released in 2009-10. The short life-cycle reflects how quickly the products improved and evolved. That said, the improvement rate has slowed down, so hopefully, people will hold onto their smartphones longer instead of updating just for fashion reasons.
I would easily agree with you about cars, but do not agree regarding appliances. What the article states about appliances is absolutely true. If you look at most major appliances warranties, you will see evidence of this that is completely the opposite of what you see with cars. Cars are seeing warranties stretching to the 10-year, 100,000 mile mark, whereas warranties on refrigerators (compressor), for example, has been halved in the last 15 years, going from 10-year warranties in the early 2000s to 5-year warranties today.
In the short-term, definite mania. Relatively unknown artists are getting ridiculous amounts of money, several magnitudes more than they get on the open market with a private commission, because the supply of artists that are currently active in this market is dwarfed by the number of rich crypto speculators that are throwing money around, trying to make a profit.