And you think it's sober people Uber is picking up between midnight and 4AM on a Friday night? Drunk people already pay a premium when they often find their drinking schedule aligns with "peak" rates...
I will give you the cheap, but they are not computers. They are electronic consumption devices.
Yes, they are, and perfectly designed for the internet consumption generation.
It's no surprise the end user experience has been reduced to a touch-screen device with a voice assistant on it; most consumers are as dumbed down as the devices they barely know how to operate.
Sandwiches also existed "before das intertubularz" so people should also not use the internet during lunch.
Given the amount of germs that sit on keyboards and the increased chance of users spilling liquid on their computer, this is actually wisdom valued far beyond the sarcasm that was intended. It's about risk mitigation.
take a fucking bus/train/other ground transport so you can keep your internet addiction alive
Those also existed before "before das intertubularz" so according to your reasoning no one should use wi-fi on those modes of transport either.
Security is a lot about risk mitigation. If WiFi or other extraneous services start introducing vulnerabilities to any form of transport, particularly the ability to safely control it, then you properly weigh those risks against the reward of satisfying a tube full of internet junkies.
Honestly, the proper decision should have been made back on the drawing board when the extraneous-services-network was being built into the plane; No ability to communicate in any way with the transport or its control systems. That doesn't mean firewall or DMZ either. That means air-gapped, tamper-proof, and TEMPEST-shielded throughout.
...In many countries everything is pirated especially in business, all your competitors will be running warez so unless you do the same you're going to be at a significant disadvantage due to your higher costs.
And this speaks to my original point; when "everything" is pirated then the norm isn't piracy; it's simply standard business practice. And it makes little or no sense to artificially inflate piracy statistics by tracking countries who behave this way. In America you have to be 21 years old to legally consume alcohol, but we don't artificially inflate underage drinking statistics by counting every 18 - 20 year old who is legally consuming alcohol in another country.
Regardless of what's on the books, the line between legal and illegal often comes down to simple enforcement. In certain countries, the only enforcement appears to be to maintain the status quo.
"...piracy remains rampant in many countries. This includes Libya, where a massive 90 percent of all software is used without permission."
With a 90% piracy rate, I only have one question; why the hell do the other 10% even bother being legal? I mean seriously, it's rather obvious enforcement is on par with morals and ethics.
Countries that clearly don't give a shit about legal software probably shouldn't be counted in the piracy statistics. They're more of a constant fuck-you outlier.
Sorry, but nothing has really changed. In fact it's probably worse now.
Users used to be unaware, and they didn't give a shit about security or privacy. Now they're fully aware, and they STILL don't give a shit about security or privacy. It's willful ignorance.
And what people are truly powerless over, are their own internet addictions and peer pressure. It's FAR more important to overshare and generally be the internet narcissist society expects you to be than it is to recognize and respect any risk involved with that activity.
That's not because people have become less wrenchy over the years. They have become mor car-y.
I'm forced to stand by my original statement, since I have no idea what in the actual fuck you're talking about.
And yes, people have become less "wrenchy". They don't know, and they don't care to learn. It's beneath the average car owner, as evidenced by the latest tactic being offered by many manufacturers to include X years of vehicle maintenance in with a new car deal. Feeling pressure to throw in those kinds of deals says a lot about consumer know-how these days.
What if your left thumb unlocked your phone and your right thumb wiped the device invisibly? The criminal could never know, you deniability and the police will be too scared to tap your dead finger to the phone.
Or what if left-right-left unlocked and left-right-right wiped?
Uh, do you really think it's going to be "so much easier" to explain to law enforcement why you erased your smartphone and not make it look like you were destroying evidence?
Try and remember the "criminals" Apple is trying to defeat here. I can assure you the larger battle will be more legal than technical when it comes to end-users wiping their own devices.
"The decision to retire the name is a smart business move."
The decision is a smart business move only because you have enough idiots out there who fall for the sleight-of-name trick.
A company being forced to change it's name tends to say a lot about all of the immoral, unethical shit that piled up high and deep to justify such a change. In the end, little will change other than the name. All the shit that people were pissed off at Monsanto will continue for one reason; because it's profitable.
And the ignorant masses will fall for it, as they celebrate their "win." The evil Monsanto was defeated today.
A while back, Toyota claimed I needed a new exhaust pipe for my Echo - $2,900 for the part alone.
Surprisingly the dealers generally aren't competitive on exhaust components....
Uh, $2900 for an exhaust tubing repair? There's a difference in being competitive vs. bending a customer over an ass-raping them with their own wallet.
Even a full cat-back exhaust replacement couldn't justify that fucking price tag.
What a horrible disease this is. I'm so proud of the scientists working on ways to fight it, and wish them all success.
Winning against cancer is one thing.
Winning against Greed N. Corruption (CEO, Medical Industrial Complex) is another matter entirely.
The best medical advancements and treatments in the world aren't worth jack shit if only 0.001% of the population can afford it. Money should not always become a primary factor in saving someone's life. Far too often, it is what ultimately hinders true advancement.
"...If a brand badge or other component looked expensive, Partneo would suggest raising the price up to a level that drivers would still be willing to pay."
Uh, the price that drivers are willing to pay? What utter bullshit.
Cars are so damn expensive these days that anything other than the smallest of fender benders will warrant a call to your auto insurance provider in order for them to pay for it. Pricing has jack shit to do with driver tolerance, and has everything to do with how insurance companies have come to accept these insane costs for parts and repairs. If insurance wasn't so damn willing, then auto manufacturers would likely be left with little choice but to keep prices reasonable.
This is why you look at car repair cost estimates before you buy your car, and use aftermarket parts when you can.
Then no one would ever buy a Honda.
Uh, let's keep in mind that only 10% of the automobile-driving population still knows how to use a wrench under the hood, so the cost of maintenance is essentially a non-factor. They're all expensive to maintain or repair because the overwhelming majority of car owners are paying someone else to do the maintenance.
Inasmuch as the economies of all first-world nations depend on people NOT reading these adhesion contracts, when the very existence of the businesses themselves depend on people NOT reading them, it's more than a little disengenuous to suggest that people do so.
Actually, the disengenuous act is forcing people to "read" and accept the damn things in the first place, particularly given my second point below.
Companies themselves violate contract law ad-nauseum with those things, and the do so knowingly, hoping the custmer doesn't know any better. How about the number of companies who illegally state that reparing them yourself violates the warranty?
When a "contract" is so laen with unenforcable and questionably legal clauses, reading it is pointless as you have no idea what will be held to be binding and what will be tossed out.
When a "contract" is so laden with unenforceable bullshit (which is known by the very organization writing the fucking thing), then the entire point of EULAs comes into question. They're essentially unenforceable. They're also essentially unreadable. It's a legal tool without any legal teeth. I don't even see how lawyers find value here, so WHY IN THE FUCK DO THEY EVEN EXIST?
And yes, that question was meant for the lawyers, since that's the group insisting we "need" them.
24 hours a day - 8 hours of work/school - 8 hours of sleep = 8 hours remaining. So every waking moment that is not at work or asleep is spent watching TV??? On average?
So that means a significant portion are spending >8 hours a day! And it means the "average" American does absolutely no other thing with their day. No eating, no travel, no video games, no gardening, no soccer games, no taking out the trash. This doesn't seem believable. Even kids spend 8 hours schooling if you include travel to school and homework and the chorus concert.
What am I missing?
What are you missing? The part where they state that the 8-hour statistic is per household, not per person.
Uh, you assume they don't know. The reality is it probably wouldn't be that difficult to create a script that monitors the HDMI output port of a cable box...
In the late 80s, music distribution was though a small number of TV channels (you know, back when the "M" of MTV still stood for music), a (relatively) small number of radio channel, and by buy media (tapes, CDs) from stores (with limited physical space).
What the hell are you talking about? Distribution through TV channels? Uh, no. We usually watched MTV to catch a music video after a song became popular enough to justify making a music video. Radio airplay was still the main distribution method, as it had been for decades prior, which people usually wouldn't go buy media until they heard the music. Radio hasn't existed in "small" numbers since it was invented, and distributors sure as hell weren't going to limit themselves to whomever could afford cable TV.
And stores with "limited physical space"? Are you kidding me? We used to have many stores that were dedicated to selling nothing but music, who carried many different "channels" of music in various categories. Where do you think all the media revenue came from before the internet distribution models? This is like claiming Gamestop has "limited" space to sell games when that's all they sell.
I understand your UID implies otherwise, but this description of the 80s sounds like it was written by a Millennial who only read about it on a poorly written Wiki page.
AI will also be really handy, e.g. better Google searches, self driving cars, cheaper services. What happens to the unskilled workforce is very difficult to tell. Will alternative opportunities arise for them? In the short term, probably.
Forget AI. Automation will be all that's necessary to replace an unskilled workforce, or displace it enough to create a massive impact on our economy and tax structure, which will likely happen within the next decade. Doesn't matter if you try and give it a fancy name like "UBI", it's still nothing more than a welfare program, and someone still employed is going to have to pay for that. AI is targeting the skilled workforce.
In the longer term, 50..200 years, the AI will become truly intelligent. It will be able to program itself. At that point it will no longer need humans, and it is difficult to see why it would want humans around. Note that this long term is the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
Whenever and whatever "true" AI is, has become irrelevant. It will only take "good enough" AI to replace a human workforce. And that sure as hell isn't half a century away. It's likely to impact the current working generation considerably. It doesn't take much to unsettle the masses, particularly when the impact is to essentially make them unemployable.
The utopia we seek is a marriage of humans and AI that enables all of us to live out our lives to the maximum extent possible. A 40-hour workweek and the concept of humans being forced to toll away at jobs for the majority of their lives becomes an extinct concept. We learn to maximize our creativity with AI, and specifically limit and nurture it to improve life for all.
Unfortunately, we both know the best-case scenario is not statistically likely. Greed feeding a warmongering thirst to engage in unending warfare to maximize profit paints our future Orwellian canvas. We're probably closer to making Skynet out of any future intelligence. Unless we Solve for Greed, humans and their future are sadly highly predictable.
Journalists that I know personally try very hard to have accurate facts and to not let their bias taint their work. While not all journalists are like that I believe most try to be. Editors and publications do have to care more about the bottom line and sadly getting the news out quickly is more important then accuracy.
Attempting to define fake news as an "accuracy" problem is like trying to define ransomware as a mere coding bug caused by a typo.
My question would be WTF this article is doing on slashdot? This is definitely not news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Normally I would respond with something like You must be new here regarding this observation, but your UID tends to imply that you didn't fall out of the bit bucket yesterday.
So I'll just kindly say Welcome back. I see you've been gone a while...
You would have a point if all transactions were conducted by exchanging truckloads of US penny coins (which should have been abolished 20 years ago, BTW).
But they're not. Most transactions don't even use paper cash.
And yet here we are, still minting pennies.
The US government makes up billions of fresh dollars every day out of nothing simply by writing a few bits to a database. If you think that, like your Bitcoin mining example, it costs the government 25% in overhead to do this, then you're high. It's a small fraction of 1%.
It's grossly ignorant to try and dismiss operational costs as a small fraction of 1% when the existence of a centralized government and military (requirements for traditional currency) costs taxpayers trillions every year. You're also assuming that the other 24% of government cost isn't pissed away every day with nothing more than good old fashioned government waste.
Yawn, read the thread. This has already been debunked.
When TFA title starts with "Nobody Knows", I'd say there hasn't been a damn thing truly "debunked". Bullshit comparisons to Christmas lights sure isn't doing it.
Bitcoin still uses more: people smarter than you have done the math.
The same infrastructure fiat needs,
Bitcoin needs that and some, it's a no brainer.
Fiat currency and Bitcoin uses the same infrastructure? Care to explain exactly how bitcoin requires physical banks? Or requires a multi-billion dollar organization (US Mint) to print and mint the currency? Not to mention the fact that traditional currency is often backed by precious metals, so let's add traditional mining to the mix too. Hell, the lack of a centralized government requirement alone is enough to make this argument a no brainer. Sure, tactics like quantitative easing can help with economic stability, but that also comes with a multi-trillion dollar price tag.
When you break it down, the reality is bitcoin infrastructure requirements are nothing in comparison to creating and sustaining traditional printed currency. Yeah, they both rely on electricity. Hell of a stretch to try and compare them on that alone and simply ignore the rest of the massive costs associated with physical currency.
And since people want to question the overall burden of a system that "isn't really used for anything except speculation", perhaps we should be comparing cryptocurrency costs to another popular system of speculation. Let's talk about the massive global cost and infrastructure needs to keep every stock market around the world operating.
Slashdot Mirror
Discrimination....
And you think it's sober people Uber is picking up between midnight and 4AM on a Friday night? Drunk people already pay a premium when they often find their drinking schedule aligns with "peak" rates...
good luck with that last one, too heavy for aircraft.
I wonder how heavy a class-action lawsuit is against an airline? From a financial standpoint, probably heavy enough to tip the scales of insolvency.
Someone should probably weigh the risks of electronic manipulation via exposed communications.
...Cell phones... yes. Almost everyone I know is glued to a cell phone... but tablets seriously? This article is from 2018 not 2010 right?
Uh, back in 2010 we didn't have cell phones the size of fucking tablets. Could be part of the confusion.
Tables are cheap computers
I will give you the cheap, but they are not computers. They are electronic consumption devices.
Yes, they are, and perfectly designed for the internet consumption generation.
It's no surprise the end user experience has been reduced to a touch-screen device with a voice assistant on it; most consumers are as dumbed down as the devices they barely know how to operate.
Sandwiches also existed "before das intertubularz" so people should also not use the internet during lunch.
Given the amount of germs that sit on keyboards and the increased chance of users spilling liquid on their computer, this is actually wisdom valued far beyond the sarcasm that was intended. It's about risk mitigation.
Those also existed before "before das intertubularz" so according to your reasoning no one should use wi-fi on those modes of transport either.
Security is a lot about risk mitigation. If WiFi or other extraneous services start introducing vulnerabilities to any form of transport, particularly the ability to safely control it, then you properly weigh those risks against the reward of satisfying a tube full of internet junkies.
Honestly, the proper decision should have been made back on the drawing board when the extraneous-services-network was being built into the plane; No ability to communicate in any way with the transport or its control systems. That doesn't mean firewall or DMZ either. That means air-gapped, tamper-proof, and TEMPEST-shielded throughout.
...In many countries everything is pirated especially in business, all your competitors will be running warez so unless you do the same you're going to be at a significant disadvantage due to your higher costs.
And this speaks to my original point; when "everything" is pirated then the norm isn't piracy; it's simply standard business practice. And it makes little or no sense to artificially inflate piracy statistics by tracking countries who behave this way. In America you have to be 21 years old to legally consume alcohol, but we don't artificially inflate underage drinking statistics by counting every 18 - 20 year old who is legally consuming alcohol in another country.
Regardless of what's on the books, the line between legal and illegal often comes down to simple enforcement. In certain countries, the only enforcement appears to be to maintain the status quo.
"...piracy remains rampant in many countries. This includes Libya, where a massive 90 percent of all software is used without permission."
With a 90% piracy rate, I only have one question; why the hell do the other 10% even bother being legal? I mean seriously, it's rather obvious enforcement is on par with morals and ethics.
Countries that clearly don't give a shit about legal software probably shouldn't be counted in the piracy statistics. They're more of a constant fuck-you outlier.
Sorry, but nothing has really changed. In fact it's probably worse now.
Users used to be unaware, and they didn't give a shit about security or privacy. Now they're fully aware, and they STILL don't give a shit about security or privacy. It's willful ignorance.
And what people are truly powerless over, are their own internet addictions and peer pressure. It's FAR more important to overshare and generally be the internet narcissist society expects you to be than it is to recognize and respect any risk involved with that activity.
That's not because people have become less wrenchy over the years. They have become mor car-y.
I'm forced to stand by my original statement, since I have no idea what in the actual fuck you're talking about.
And yes, people have become less "wrenchy". They don't know, and they don't care to learn. It's beneath the average car owner, as evidenced by the latest tactic being offered by many manufacturers to include X years of vehicle maintenance in with a new car deal. Feeling pressure to throw in those kinds of deals says a lot about consumer know-how these days.
What if your left thumb unlocked your phone and your right thumb wiped the device invisibly? The criminal could never know, you deniability and the police will be too scared to tap your dead finger to the phone. Or what if left-right-left unlocked and left-right-right wiped?
Uh, do you really think it's going to be "so much easier" to explain to law enforcement why you erased your smartphone and not make it look like you were destroying evidence?
Try and remember the "criminals" Apple is trying to defeat here. I can assure you the larger battle will be more legal than technical when it comes to end-users wiping their own devices.
"The decision to retire the name is a smart business move."
The decision is a smart business move only because you have enough idiots out there who fall for the sleight-of-name trick.
A company being forced to change it's name tends to say a lot about all of the immoral, unethical shit that piled up high and deep to justify such a change. In the end, little will change other than the name. All the shit that people were pissed off at Monsanto will continue for one reason; because it's profitable.
And the ignorant masses will fall for it, as they celebrate their "win." The evil Monsanto was defeated today.
A while back, Toyota claimed I needed a new exhaust pipe for my Echo - $2,900 for the part alone.
Surprisingly the dealers generally aren't competitive on exhaust components....
Uh, $2900 for an exhaust tubing repair? There's a difference in being competitive vs. bending a customer over an ass-raping them with their own wallet.
Even a full cat-back exhaust replacement couldn't justify that fucking price tag.
What a horrible disease this is. I'm so proud of the scientists working on ways to fight it, and wish them all success.
Winning against cancer is one thing.
Winning against Greed N. Corruption (CEO, Medical Industrial Complex) is another matter entirely.
The best medical advancements and treatments in the world aren't worth jack shit if only 0.001% of the population can afford it. Money should not always become a primary factor in saving someone's life. Far too often, it is what ultimately hinders true advancement.
"...If a brand badge or other component looked expensive, Partneo would suggest raising the price up to a level that drivers would still be willing to pay."
Uh, the price that drivers are willing to pay? What utter bullshit.
Cars are so damn expensive these days that anything other than the smallest of fender benders will warrant a call to your auto insurance provider in order for them to pay for it. Pricing has jack shit to do with driver tolerance, and has everything to do with how insurance companies have come to accept these insane costs for parts and repairs. If insurance wasn't so damn willing, then auto manufacturers would likely be left with little choice but to keep prices reasonable.
This is why you look at car repair cost estimates before you buy your car, and use aftermarket parts when you can.
Then no one would ever buy a Honda.
Uh, let's keep in mind that only 10% of the automobile-driving population still knows how to use a wrench under the hood, so the cost of maintenance is essentially a non-factor. They're all expensive to maintain or repair because the overwhelming majority of car owners are paying someone else to do the maintenance.
Inasmuch as the economies of all first-world nations depend on people NOT reading these adhesion contracts, when the very existence of the businesses themselves depend on people NOT reading them, it's more than a little disengenuous to suggest that people do so.
Actually, the disengenuous act is forcing people to "read" and accept the damn things in the first place, particularly given my second point below.
Companies themselves violate contract law ad-nauseum with those things, and the do so knowingly, hoping the custmer doesn't know any better. How about the number of companies who illegally state that reparing them yourself violates the warranty?
When a "contract" is so laen with unenforcable and questionably legal clauses, reading it is pointless as you have no idea what will be held to be binding and what will be tossed out.
When a "contract" is so laden with unenforceable bullshit (which is known by the very organization writing the fucking thing), then the entire point of EULAs comes into question. They're essentially unenforceable. They're also essentially unreadable. It's a legal tool without any legal teeth. I don't even see how lawyers find value here, so WHY IN THE FUCK DO THEY EVEN EXIST?
And yes, that question was meant for the lawyers, since that's the group insisting we "need" them.
24 hours a day - 8 hours of work/school - 8 hours of sleep = 8 hours remaining. So every waking moment that is not at work or asleep is spent watching TV??? On average?
So that means a significant portion are spending >8 hours a day! And it means the "average" American does absolutely no other thing with their day. No eating, no travel, no video games, no gardening, no soccer games, no taking out the trash. This doesn't seem believable. Even kids spend 8 hours schooling if you include travel to school and homework and the chorus concert.
What am I missing?
What are you missing? The part where they state that the 8-hour statistic is per household, not per person.
...Comcast doesn't know I turned off my TV.
Uh, you assume they don't know. The reality is it probably wouldn't be that difficult to create a script that monitors the HDMI output port of a cable box...
In the late 80s, music distribution was though a small number of TV channels (you know, back when the "M" of MTV still stood for music), a (relatively) small number of radio channel, and by buy media (tapes, CDs) from stores (with limited physical space).
What the hell are you talking about? Distribution through TV channels? Uh, no. We usually watched MTV to catch a music video after a song became popular enough to justify making a music video. Radio airplay was still the main distribution method, as it had been for decades prior, which people usually wouldn't go buy media until they heard the music. Radio hasn't existed in "small" numbers since it was invented, and distributors sure as hell weren't going to limit themselves to whomever could afford cable TV.
And stores with "limited physical space"? Are you kidding me? We used to have many stores that were dedicated to selling nothing but music, who carried many different "channels" of music in various categories. Where do you think all the media revenue came from before the internet distribution models? This is like claiming Gamestop has "limited" space to sell games when that's all they sell.
I understand your UID implies otherwise, but this description of the 80s sounds like it was written by a Millennial who only read about it on a poorly written Wiki page.
AI will also be really handy, e.g. better Google searches, self driving cars, cheaper services. What happens to the unskilled workforce is very difficult to tell. Will alternative opportunities arise for them? In the short term, probably.
Forget AI. Automation will be all that's necessary to replace an unskilled workforce, or displace it enough to create a massive impact on our economy and tax structure, which will likely happen within the next decade. Doesn't matter if you try and give it a fancy name like "UBI", it's still nothing more than a welfare program, and someone still employed is going to have to pay for that. AI is targeting the skilled workforce.
In the longer term, 50..200 years, the AI will become truly intelligent. It will be able to program itself. At that point it will no longer need humans, and it is difficult to see why it would want humans around. Note that this long term is the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
Whenever and whatever "true" AI is, has become irrelevant. It will only take "good enough" AI to replace a human workforce. And that sure as hell isn't half a century away. It's likely to impact the current working generation considerably. It doesn't take much to unsettle the masses, particularly when the impact is to essentially make them unemployable.
The utopia we seek is a marriage of humans and AI that enables all of us to live out our lives to the maximum extent possible. A 40-hour workweek and the concept of humans being forced to toll away at jobs for the majority of their lives becomes an extinct concept. We learn to maximize our creativity with AI, and specifically limit and nurture it to improve life for all.
Unfortunately, we both know the best-case scenario is not statistically likely. Greed feeding a warmongering thirst to engage in unending warfare to maximize profit paints our future Orwellian canvas. We're probably closer to making Skynet out of any future intelligence. Unless we Solve for Greed, humans and their future are sadly highly predictable.
Journalists that I know personally try very hard to have accurate facts and to not let their bias taint their work. While not all journalists are like that I believe most try to be. Editors and publications do have to care more about the bottom line and sadly getting the news out quickly is more important then accuracy.
Attempting to define fake news as an "accuracy" problem is like trying to define ransomware as a mere coding bug caused by a typo.
My question would be WTF this article is doing on slashdot? This is definitely not news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Normally I would respond with something like You must be new here regarding this observation, but your UID tends to imply that you didn't fall out of the bit bucket yesterday.
So I'll just kindly say Welcome back. I see you've been gone a while...
You would have a point if all transactions were conducted by exchanging truckloads of US penny coins (which should have been abolished 20 years ago, BTW).
But they're not. Most transactions don't even use paper cash.
And yet here we are, still minting pennies.
The US government makes up billions of fresh dollars every day out of nothing simply by writing a few bits to a database. If you think that, like your Bitcoin mining example, it costs the government 25% in overhead to do this, then you're high. It's a small fraction of 1%.
It's grossly ignorant to try and dismiss operational costs as a small fraction of 1% when the existence of a centralized government and military (requirements for traditional currency) costs taxpayers trillions every year. You're also assuming that the other 24% of government cost isn't pissed away every day with nothing more than good old fashioned government waste.
Yawn, read the thread. This has already been debunked.
When TFA title starts with "Nobody Knows", I'd say there hasn't been a damn thing truly "debunked". Bullshit comparisons to Christmas lights sure isn't doing it.
Bitcoin still uses more: people smarter than you have done the math.
The same infrastructure fiat needs, Bitcoin needs that and some, it's a no brainer.
Fiat currency and Bitcoin uses the same infrastructure? Care to explain exactly how bitcoin requires physical banks? Or requires a multi-billion dollar organization (US Mint) to print and mint the currency? Not to mention the fact that traditional currency is often backed by precious metals, so let's add traditional mining to the mix too. Hell, the lack of a centralized government requirement alone is enough to make this argument a no brainer. Sure, tactics like quantitative easing can help with economic stability, but that also comes with a multi-trillion dollar price tag.
When you break it down, the reality is bitcoin infrastructure requirements are nothing in comparison to creating and sustaining traditional printed currency. Yeah, they both rely on electricity. Hell of a stretch to try and compare them on that alone and simply ignore the rest of the massive costs associated with physical currency.
And since people want to question the overall burden of a system that "isn't really used for anything except speculation", perhaps we should be comparing cryptocurrency costs to another popular system of speculation. Let's talk about the massive global cost and infrastructure needs to keep every stock market around the world operating.