Frankly, every single government department that engaged in censorship should just be shut down, and every single politician who pushed censorship should be censured.
Straight-up nuclear option.
Straight-up nuclear option.
I agree with Jeff on this one. Banks that are run badly collapsing is a good thing.
Our society has a big problem: People take big risks to get rich, then when they become rich they buy politicians, and when the natural consequences of taking stupid risks occur and they're supposed to lose their money and power then the politicians step in and use our money and our kids money to bail them out.
When we remove the factors that limit bad behavior such as protecting banks from collapsing under the weight of their unmanaged risk, then we break the game, and suddenly the only way to succeed is to take big risks without any regard for the consequences. It's the famous privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. Meanwhile, the people who are responsible get out-competed since there's no benefit to doing the right thing.
From this point of view, it's predictable that the collapses would get bigger and bigger and we wouldn't learn any lessons from them.
I wrote a long paper on the monetary causes of virtually every recession in the US. Limit the money supply and make fractional reserve banking difficult to abuse and you'll end up with a nice boring economy, you won't need to take everyone's money and give it to the richest people every 10 years just to prevent a collapse.
Our society has a big problem: People take big risks to get rich, then when they become rich they buy politicians, and when the natural consequences of taking stupid risks occur and they're supposed to lose their money and power then the politicians step in and use our money and our kids money to bail them out.
When we remove the factors that limit bad behavior such as protecting banks from collapsing under the weight of their unmanaged risk, then we break the game, and suddenly the only way to succeed is to take big risks without any regard for the consequences. It's the famous privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. Meanwhile, the people who are responsible get out-competed since there's no benefit to doing the right thing.
From this point of view, it's predictable that the collapses would get bigger and bigger and we wouldn't learn any lessons from them.
I wrote a long paper on the monetary causes of virtually every recession in the US. Limit the money supply and make fractional reserve banking difficult to abuse and you'll end up with a nice boring economy, you won't need to take everyone's money and give it to the richest people every 10 years just to prevent a collapse.
The fact that the world is made of shades of grey used to be uncontroversial. One of the most dangerous things I see is the pathological need to put everything on a board labelled "good" and "bad".
Not to mention that one has the backing of the entire international elite and the other has had to fight those same elite every step of the way. Scarily accurate.
The fact that people still trust the institution of science when it's this badly damaged is actually dangerous. It's a useless thing without it's most important feature, humility.
Definitely something people don't seem to realize is that this can only give you back what you've put into it.
No idea, just that it's chatgpt running off of openAI's servers. It may only be using an earlier revision for that service.
They're not just being petty because they don't like him because the teevee told him he's bad, nope nosireebob.
Which is why they're locking up Al Gore too! (Right?)
Which is why they're locking up Al Gore too! (Right?)
I'm not CS/IT, but I'm adjacent to both. I haven't been impressed with the code I've asked chatgpt to write. Often it produces code that won't even compile, it doesn't know APIs so it just makes shit up that seems like it should be right, and it seems to spit out exactly what I'd expect from an algorithm designed to make stuff that looks like it should be correct but doesn't need to be.
If this level of work represents the base level from a CompSci student in 2023, then most CompSci students should have been failed out of their respective programs.
If this level of work represents the base level from a CompSci student in 2023, then most CompSci students should have been failed out of their respective programs.
Seems to me that ChatGPT got the answer wrong (as often happens with complicated questions). Poland as a country may have a long history, but unlike Switzerland, Poland ceased to exist for a period of time, so it is in fact a newer country.
Honestly, it doesn't need to be a yellow coin, and one of my favorite stories is a cautionary tale in this regard:
Once, aluminium was considered the most valuable precious metal. It was so valuable that Napoleon III had a set of aluminium dinnerware he showed off as an example of his wealth and power. It was so valuable that the tip of the Washington monument is capped with a 6 pound tip made out of aluminium, the largest piece of aluminium used at that time in history.
The thing is, it turns out that aluminium isn't some insanely rare metal, it's one of the most common metals on earth. Eventually, processes were developed to turn plentiful aluminium ores into the metal, and the price plummetted. Today, we make everything from disposable drink cans to vehicles with it. If you gave someone a 6 pound tip of aluminium, it wouldn't represent as much value as 2200 man-hours of labor, you can pick up that much in a manufactured item for less than a day's labor at minimum wage.
In such a way, gold and silver could become useless as monetary metals as well. If we were to perfect asteroid mining, for example, and we were able to economically exponentially increase the availability of the metals, then the rarity of gold would no longer be a limiting factor.
The benefits of using rare metals as money are twofold:
1. It keeps governments honest in terms of creating money. If the government wanted a dollar in 1900, then they needed to dig up approximately 1.5g of pure gold. Same with silver, you need the silver to have the silver. This isn't perfectly effective, since governments created "debasement" where they start with the base metal and add other cheaper metals until the currency is useless anyway.
2. It ensures there's a value floor on the currency. If you need a certain amount of a valuable metal to create a coin, then that coin will always be worth at least as much as the metal used to produce the coin. In fact, many countries considered their silver coins to be basically interchangeable at certain points in history since an ounce of fine silver is as good as any other ounce of fine silver. We've actually got a problem here today where our money has been so badly debased that even the crude facimiles are worth more in terms of their metals than the currency itself is worth, leading to us eliminating the penny because the copper coated zinc made no fiscal sense to issue, and I'm certain that within my lifetime other coins will also disappear.
Of course, despite what some people think, it isn't a perfect solution either.
1. It locks useful resources up in vaults and wallets, and that's bad because precious metals actually have good uses. When aluminium became widely available, it became used for many things it wasn't before, and gold and silver would likely be the same if it was equally available.
2. It also gives disproportionate power to miners. If I buy a computer from Dell, what business does a guy who owns a gold mine have getting in on that by selling the economy an ounce of gold that I'll solely use to tabulate the fact that I paid for the computer?
3. Fractional reserve banking sort of breaks the benefits of hard currencies, since you can have an economy that should have X dollars that instead has X+Y dollars where Y is dictated entirely by the banks. The danger of a bank run is built into the fact that fractional reserve banking is basically a scam where you tell two people they each have the same dollar.
4. Honesty just isn't very fun sometimes. Leverage and money printing are a two sided coin -- on one hand, the bad sides are that the value of people's hard work is degraded by the government's inflation tax, and the bust of the cycle means a lot of people get really badly hurt because they get in over their heads and take a lot of other people with them. On the other hand, the good sides are that inflation means debt is always shrinking at a certain rate, and there's always an incentive to make more money, and while the bust hurts, the boom feels great and sometimes something wonderful results from the risks people take during the boom such as our entire modern world.
Economics isn't simple because it isn't a hard science, it's a social science with hard constraints in the real world. If you have 1kg of bread you can't magic a second kg of bread into existence, but every single person can have a different opinion as to the value of that 1kg of bread and the aggregate of all those opinions matters, especially when people can choose to use their own resources to make more bread, or they can choose to consume their resources so there won't be any more bread, and a thousand other little things.
Once, aluminium was considered the most valuable precious metal. It was so valuable that Napoleon III had a set of aluminium dinnerware he showed off as an example of his wealth and power. It was so valuable that the tip of the Washington monument is capped with a 6 pound tip made out of aluminium, the largest piece of aluminium used at that time in history.
The thing is, it turns out that aluminium isn't some insanely rare metal, it's one of the most common metals on earth. Eventually, processes were developed to turn plentiful aluminium ores into the metal, and the price plummetted. Today, we make everything from disposable drink cans to vehicles with it. If you gave someone a 6 pound tip of aluminium, it wouldn't represent as much value as 2200 man-hours of labor, you can pick up that much in a manufactured item for less than a day's labor at minimum wage.
In such a way, gold and silver could become useless as monetary metals as well. If we were to perfect asteroid mining, for example, and we were able to economically exponentially increase the availability of the metals, then the rarity of gold would no longer be a limiting factor.
The benefits of using rare metals as money are twofold:
1. It keeps governments honest in terms of creating money. If the government wanted a dollar in 1900, then they needed to dig up approximately 1.5g of pure gold. Same with silver, you need the silver to have the silver. This isn't perfectly effective, since governments created "debasement" where they start with the base metal and add other cheaper metals until the currency is useless anyway.
2. It ensures there's a value floor on the currency. If you need a certain amount of a valuable metal to create a coin, then that coin will always be worth at least as much as the metal used to produce the coin. In fact, many countries considered their silver coins to be basically interchangeable at certain points in history since an ounce of fine silver is as good as any other ounce of fine silver. We've actually got a problem here today where our money has been so badly debased that even the crude facimiles are worth more in terms of their metals than the currency itself is worth, leading to us eliminating the penny because the copper coated zinc made no fiscal sense to issue, and I'm certain that within my lifetime other coins will also disappear.
Of course, despite what some people think, it isn't a perfect solution either.
1. It locks useful resources up in vaults and wallets, and that's bad because precious metals actually have good uses. When aluminium became widely available, it became used for many things it wasn't before, and gold and silver would likely be the same if it was equally available.
2. It also gives disproportionate power to miners. If I buy a computer from Dell, what business does a guy who owns a gold mine have getting in on that by selling the economy an ounce of gold that I'll solely use to tabulate the fact that I paid for the computer?
3. Fractional reserve banking sort of breaks the benefits of hard currencies, since you can have an economy that should have X dollars that instead has X+Y dollars where Y is dictated entirely by the banks. The danger of a bank run is built into the fact that fractional reserve banking is basically a scam where you tell two people they each have the same dollar.
4. Honesty just isn't very fun sometimes. Leverage and money printing are a two sided coin -- on one hand, the bad sides are that the value of people's hard work is degraded by the government's inflation tax, and the bust of the cycle means a lot of people get really badly hurt because they get in over their heads and take a lot of other people with them. On the other hand, the good sides are that inflation means debt is always shrinking at a certain rate, and there's always an incentive to make more money, and while the bust hurts, the boom feels great and sometimes something wonderful results from the risks people take during the boom such as our entire modern world.
Economics isn't simple because it isn't a hard science, it's a social science with hard constraints in the real world. If you have 1kg of bread you can't magic a second kg of bread into existence, but every single person can have a different opinion as to the value of that 1kg of bread and the aggregate of all those opinions matters, especially when people can choose to use their own resources to make more bread, or they can choose to consume their resources so there won't be any more bread, and a thousand other little things.
The extreme hypocrisy of the whole "incels are the bad guy" thing comes from many different angles. "Women aren't trophies except those guys over there lack trophies look at those losers!"
I mean, I see people so stupid they're posting about the budget Biden tabled knowing it had no chance of passing, so I'm sure there's people stupid enough to fall for that too.