A while back I realized that this time next year Canada could have cheap gas and plastic straws.... And that makes me Maple MAGA for sure.
That video of him talking like your sketchy brother begging for money was pretty memorable. "We will make it loan! We pay you back in full!"
Australia is inexorably heading toward an existential crisis if it embarks upon the revision of syntactic configurations and the deliberate selection of lexemes, driven by the escalating lexicographical incompetence endemic within the broader populace, whose functional illiteracy now appears to be a pervasive epistemological impediment to even rudimentary textual engagement.
Considering that Canadian banks are as unsustainable as any business on planet Earth, it makes sense for them to also be promoting other unsustainable policies.
"Oh, you're such a big strong man, Mr. FEMA executive! Please tell me more about how you ignored counties that voted Red in 2020!"
Semantics is the study of meaning in language, symbols, or signs.
So if one were Anti-Semantic, one would reject meaning, including the meaning of (((brackets)))
It's just a dumb play on words.
So if one were Anti-Semantic, one would reject meaning, including the meaning of (((brackets)))
It's just a dumb play on words.
If you're "Anti-Semantic", that would mean.... putting words in (((brackets like this))) would be meaningless because you don't care when stuff adds meaning like that... Ironic, isn't it?
Most of my money has been spent on GOG in the past few years because most of the games worth looking at were made over 15 years ago.
(Shame they went woke, but at least it's DRM-Free so I can keep all my games locally)
(Shame they went woke, but at least it's DRM-Free so I can keep all my games locally)
People whose entire lives rely on fossil fuels who don't contribute anything to the material wealth of a society telling everyone else it's time to "get real".
Like many moronic short-sighted ideas by people who aren't as smart as they think they are, it'll lead to mass death. I call these people "genocide advocates" because if they get their way, a billion people almost immediately die.
The same sort of arrogant people actually got power in the Soviet Union and Maos China and the result was exactly as I said.
Ironically, the people calling for an end to an end to fossil fuels are literally bourgeoisie -- city people. They type on their keyboard made out of petrochemicals and look at their screens made of petrochemicals and sit in their chairs made our of petrochemicals in homes made of petrochemicals and write about how we need to end fossil fuels using electricity that even if it's produced with solar was in reality often made using fossil fuels because the devices were made in China, which burns more coal than every other country on earth combined.
Reality is that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Eventually there just aren't any more dead forests to burn and there's a real problem with things like climate. Thing is, it isn't a switch we can just magically flip. These people have no idea what the fundamental challenges of energy are. It's not something we magically do by 2030 because someone signed a paper. In fact, if they got what they wanted there'd be civil wars and decarbonization would become a dirty word for generations.
Like many moronic short-sighted ideas by people who aren't as smart as they think they are, it'll lead to mass death. I call these people "genocide advocates" because if they get their way, a billion people almost immediately die.
The same sort of arrogant people actually got power in the Soviet Union and Maos China and the result was exactly as I said.
Ironically, the people calling for an end to an end to fossil fuels are literally bourgeoisie -- city people. They type on their keyboard made out of petrochemicals and look at their screens made of petrochemicals and sit in their chairs made our of petrochemicals in homes made of petrochemicals and write about how we need to end fossil fuels using electricity that even if it's produced with solar was in reality often made using fossil fuels because the devices were made in China, which burns more coal than every other country on earth combined.
Reality is that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Eventually there just aren't any more dead forests to burn and there's a real problem with things like climate. Thing is, it isn't a switch we can just magically flip. These people have no idea what the fundamental challenges of energy are. It's not something we magically do by 2030 because someone signed a paper. In fact, if they got what they wanted there'd be civil wars and decarbonization would become a dirty word for generations.
They know about each other, but they're like pandas in captivity and refuse to fuck.
I've pointed out many times that Trump is to the left of Clinton by a substantial margin.
- He supported Gay marriage on day 1 of his presidency (the first president in history to do so). Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between a man and a woman
- He didn't cut welfare, Clinton did.
- He didn't try to balance a budget, Clinton did.
- Trump signed the "second chance act" to reduce felonies, Clinton signed the 1994 crime act that increased felonies
- Trump didn't start new wars, Clinton was fully engaged in the world police thing.
Trump previously ran as a Democrat, and he's still essentially a democrat from 20 years ago. People take mean tweets and extrapolate that and a red R next to his name into a bunch of stuff he isn't.
- He supported Gay marriage on day 1 of his presidency (the first president in history to do so). Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between a man and a woman
- He didn't cut welfare, Clinton did.
- He didn't try to balance a budget, Clinton did.
- Trump signed the "second chance act" to reduce felonies, Clinton signed the 1994 crime act that increased felonies
- Trump didn't start new wars, Clinton was fully engaged in the world police thing.
Trump previously ran as a Democrat, and he's still essentially a democrat from 20 years ago. People take mean tweets and extrapolate that and a red R next to his name into a bunch of stuff he isn't.
Let's be honest, how many tabs are just bookmarks you intend to close after you visit?
For me.... It's lots. I have 32GB on my main machine for a reason, and it's probably to open more tabs.
For me.... It's lots. I have 32GB on my main machine for a reason, and it's probably to open more tabs.
They kind of have to because it's solely a speculative asset.
I did a huge post about this a day or two ago. People buy bitcoin because they think someday it will be all the money and they want to own a significant percentage of all the money. The problem is that this use case doesn't actually involve buying anything with bitcoin.
A currency according to Austrian economists is something that works as a unit of account (how much does an apple cost?), a store of value, and a method of exchange. Presently, bitcoin fails all 3. The first and second because the price varies so wildly, the third because you can't really buy anything with it other than dollars.
I proposed a system be integrated into bitcoin that would grant incentives for using bitcoin based on the total GDP of bitcoin. The idea would be that you'd want to increase the money supply as the amount of goods and services bought and sold using the currency increased so the relative value of one bitcoin stays the same in spite of more stuff you can do with it. You'd also want to decrease the money supply as the amount of goods and services bought and sold decreased, so you'd want to increase service fees and destroy some of the bitcoin with every transaction to lower the total number in circulation, and all of these decisions would be done using a model predictive controller utilizing the known blockchain data set.
I recognize that to make such changes arguably you wouldn't have bitcoin anymore since its defining features would be eliminated, but as things go it's just a thing you buy because you want it to go up.
I did a huge post about this a day or two ago. People buy bitcoin because they think someday it will be all the money and they want to own a significant percentage of all the money. The problem is that this use case doesn't actually involve buying anything with bitcoin.
A currency according to Austrian economists is something that works as a unit of account (how much does an apple cost?), a store of value, and a method of exchange. Presently, bitcoin fails all 3. The first and second because the price varies so wildly, the third because you can't really buy anything with it other than dollars.
I proposed a system be integrated into bitcoin that would grant incentives for using bitcoin based on the total GDP of bitcoin. The idea would be that you'd want to increase the money supply as the amount of goods and services bought and sold using the currency increased so the relative value of one bitcoin stays the same in spite of more stuff you can do with it. You'd also want to decrease the money supply as the amount of goods and services bought and sold decreased, so you'd want to increase service fees and destroy some of the bitcoin with every transaction to lower the total number in circulation, and all of these decisions would be done using a model predictive controller utilizing the known blockchain data set.
I recognize that to make such changes arguably you wouldn't have bitcoin anymore since its defining features would be eliminated, but as things go it's just a thing you buy because you want it to go up.
I don't have timelines at the moment, but I do have hope for at least 2 more books, one programming book and one hard science fiction book.
I always appreciate seeing your positive feedback too. I'm trying to be principled, but I'm still a human being and so seeing that people are interested in what I'm up to helps feel like I'm not just shouting into the void too.