Assume I have 100 bitcoins and I want to buy a computer which costs 100 bitcoins now.
It's a very simplistic example, innit? Bitcoin has had an upward trajectory of late, but it's been a very volatile upward trajectory, and was preceded by an extended downturn in the value of BTC. History, then, does not support your example, as nobody really knows how the market will behave tomorrow.
Money has three primary functions, a unit of account, a store of value and a medium of exchange. Your examples only function as a very limited medium of exchange, they do not provide a way to store value and they certainly can't be used sensibly as a unit of account.
You're right, but you're simultaneously missing a key point: Money as we have known it for thousands of years has been bound by the physical aspect of that money, and the contours of money and how it is used have had to obey that fact. Bitcoin fails some (or even most) of the classic tests of money, but also introduces new facets and new abilities. Bitcoin isn't fiat currency, though it shares some aspects in common. It isn't gold either, but shares some aspects there too.
This may seem obvious to state, but Bitcoin is something new, unlike everything that came before it. And yes, it could certainly fail. But try for a minute to imagine what Bitcoin (or something like it) could do, and how that might alter the way we do business and exchange money in the future.
TL;DR: Think bigger. You'll not get anywhere by pooh-poohing the future.
You just proved why BTC will never become a standard.
Ahem. Bitcoin is already a standard. It is the premiere cryptocurrency, by a long shot. If there is anything that isn't up for debate, it's whether Bitcoin is a standard or not. Your complaint is that it will never be used as a currency the way dollars, pounds, euros, (etc) are for day-to-day transactions.
But guess what? Almost everyone involved in Bitcoin gave up that idea a long time ago. The only ones who are still fixated on this point are the people who use it as some kind of "aha, gotcha" proof that it will never be a "standard". The joke is on you. While you tilt against the currency windmill, the rest of the crypto world has moved on to more ambitious goals.
The differences that whisky aficionados talk about are readily perceived by the ordinary palette.
And while the audiophile realm is filled with snake oil salesmen who want nothing more than to separate you from your hard-earned wages, providing you with products of highly dubious value, whisky is largely --- and I do say this in the over-all sense, understanding that there are occasional exceptions --- value-based. The more you spend on a bottle, generally speaking, the better it will taste.
I largely agree with this, but I'll go ahead and provide one of the most egregious and notable exceptions that you alluded to: Pappy Van Winkle is surely the Pear Anjou speaker cable of the whiskey world. Perfectly acceptable bourbon, to be sure. But not worth anything near the going price.
Speaking as an avid whisk(e)y drinker, I have long ago learned to spot other whisk(e)y enthusiasts. I have enjoyed a wide variety of the stuff with a wide variety of people. I think, then, that I can say with some authority that you're not a snob at all -- you're something so much more. I think the proper classification is "whisky douchebag".
I know I'll get modded down for this, but I don't care. I've got a glass of the good stuff in one hand and karma in the bank.
Then you are mistaken. It only means that the government can't censor you. Your friends and family could turn their backs on you in response to hate speech, for instance. Your employer might fire you for being racist or misogynist. Protesters might show up outside your house to alert your neighbors to the fact that you're an enormous douchebag. Any of these things count as "consequences", and "freedom of speech" shields you from exactly none of them.
If it causes the signal to be recorded or reproduced inaccurately, it's a defect.
By that measure, the vast majority of lenses are defective. Wide aperture lenses have a narrow depth of field (which is very desirable for many types of photos) but even if you use a small aperture to increase the depth of field, there's still an upper limit to the range of distances that are in focus. And the more you narrow the aperture, the less light you're going to get, which in turn increases the amount of time it takes to properly expose the photo, which in turn requires a stationary tripod mount and demands that the subject be perfectly still. Ever tried to get a kid to sit still through a long exposure? Yeah.
TL;DR: You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
It's not even about good cameras. It's about a software feature to emulate a defect in large aperture lenses even though the phone has a tiny lens that isn't susceptable to that defect
Nice try. That "defect in large aperture lenses" is at the very top of the list of any portrait photographer. Your attempt to spin it as a "defect" is weaksauce at best, and deliberately dishonest at worst.
I just can't understand buying a car only to be an errand car.
That's a bit dishonest. I very clearly said commute and errand car. That means I drive it every workday, and then some.
I understand that some people don't go on long trips, but you need to consider all uses for a vehicle, not the minimum use case.
My wife has her own car. If we have to go someplace out of range of the electric, we take hers.
The point I was trying to make is that an electric car meets the needs of many people. Almost every two-car family with a commute under 50 miles per day, for instance, could be very well served by an electric car.
Real people move more than 10 miles from where they were born. You should try getting out more with a real car and see the world.
Real people fly home to see their parents, as they are often well out of driving distance. It would take three days of driving (in an ICE car) to get from where I live to where my parents live.
You should try getting out more in order to understand that there's a whole world around you, filled with people with different needs than yours.
I own an electric car, and am quite happy with it. It meets all my needs as a commuter and errand car. The range is limited, but my commute is only about 15 miles per day, so i only charge it once a week or so on standard US house current (120v).
Nobody wants one so the government is forcing you to buy a shit car.
I see scores of electric cars on the road every single day on my way to work. Clearly, your statement is without merit.
I'm beyond sick of this SJW shit. I won't be watching this series.
There there, delicate snowflake. It'll be okay. Better to lock yourself into your safe space and avoid any further trigger warnings.
mean this particular time lord is male....now they're rewriting it so gender is only skin deep? These idiots really don't think things through when they ram down their wingnut agenda.
Your opinion is at odds with Doctor Who canon. There's nothing saying that this particular time lord is specifically male, or that this particular time lord can't change genders. We have hints that time lords can even change species.
This last companion, however, was an abomination of SJW-ness. Not a single episode went by without them putting some focus on her liking girls and/or (mostly and) some slavery reference. It was tedious, annoying, helped nothing, and damaged the story lines.
For my money, Bill was one of the most interesting companions in years. Your dislike of her says much more about you than it does about Bill.
It doesn't matter what I think, because I don't live in a swing state.
Have you heard? There's a whole world outside the US of motherfucking A. They have divergent opinions, and they're doing something about it with or without you.
That's not what SuperKendall wrote, and it's dishonest of you to imply that he did.
That's exactly what he wrote, and I stand by my statement.
For decades now, the deliberate creation of environmental panic has been used by unscrupulous alarmists like Al Gore to gain wealth and political power. The fear and hatred thus generated has been completely unnecessary, and done more harm than good.
And there it is, the unvarnished bullshit. Sorry, you're clearly far too biased to say anything meaningful in this conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
Assume I have 100 bitcoins and I want to buy a computer which costs 100 bitcoins now.
It's a very simplistic example, innit? Bitcoin has had an upward trajectory of late, but it's been a very volatile upward trajectory, and was preceded by an extended downturn in the value of BTC. History, then, does not support your example, as nobody really knows how the market will behave tomorrow.
Money has three primary functions, a unit of account, a store of value and a medium of exchange. Your examples only function as a very limited medium of exchange, they do not provide a way to store value and they certainly can't be used sensibly as a unit of account.
You're right, but you're simultaneously missing a key point: Money as we have known it for thousands of years has been bound by the physical aspect of that money, and the contours of money and how it is used have had to obey that fact. Bitcoin fails some (or even most) of the classic tests of money, but also introduces new facets and new abilities. Bitcoin isn't fiat currency, though it shares some aspects in common. It isn't gold either, but shares some aspects there too.
This may seem obvious to state, but Bitcoin is something new, unlike everything that came before it. And yes, it could certainly fail. But try for a minute to imagine what Bitcoin (or something like it) could do, and how that might alter the way we do business and exchange money in the future.
TL;DR: Think bigger. You'll not get anywhere by pooh-poohing the future.
Should I spend now, or hang on to see if the price goes up?
Hodl!
You just proved why BTC will never become a standard.
Ahem. Bitcoin is already a standard. It is the premiere cryptocurrency, by a long shot. If there is anything that isn't up for debate, it's whether Bitcoin is a standard or not. Your complaint is that it will never be used as a currency the way dollars, pounds, euros, (etc) are for day-to-day transactions.
But guess what? Almost everyone involved in Bitcoin gave up that idea a long time ago. The only ones who are still fixated on this point are the people who use it as some kind of "aha, gotcha" proof that it will never be a "standard". The joke is on you. While you tilt against the currency windmill, the rest of the crypto world has moved on to more ambitious goals.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Possibly the most well-remembered example is Tulip Mania, which occurred in 1637.
Thanks much for posting that. I'm sure nobody involved in Bitcoin has ever heard the comparison to tulip mania before. That's incredibly insightful.
~sarcasm
$30B / 3k people = $10 million per person. That's a heck of a lot of economic benefit per person.
What's the GDP of the US? What does it work out to per person?
The differences that whisky aficionados talk about are readily perceived by the ordinary palette.
And while the audiophile realm is filled with snake oil salesmen who want nothing more than to separate you from your hard-earned wages, providing you with products of highly dubious value, whisky is largely --- and I do say this in the over-all sense, understanding that there are occasional exceptions --- value-based. The more you spend on a bottle, generally speaking, the better it will taste.
I largely agree with this, but I'll go ahead and provide one of the most egregious and notable exceptions that you alluded to: Pappy Van Winkle is surely the Pear Anjou speaker cable of the whiskey world. Perfectly acceptable bourbon, to be sure. But not worth anything near the going price.
True "whisky snobs" know the difference.
Speaking as an avid whisk(e)y drinker, I have long ago learned to spot other whisk(e)y enthusiasts. I have enjoyed a wide variety of the stuff with a wide variety of people. I think, then, that I can say with some authority that you're not a snob at all -- you're something so much more. I think the proper classification is "whisky douchebag".
I know I'll get modded down for this, but I don't care. I've got a glass of the good stuff in one hand and karma in the bank.
The app reportedly uses "an algorithmic casting agent of sorts" to hand-pick people
These words do not mean what you think they do.
I think it means exactly that.
Then you are mistaken. It only means that the government can't censor you. Your friends and family could turn their backs on you in response to hate speech, for instance. Your employer might fire you for being racist or misogynist. Protesters might show up outside your house to alert your neighbors to the fact that you're an enormous douchebag. Any of these things count as "consequences", and "freedom of speech" shields you from exactly none of them.
Is that really so hard to understand?
mansplaining is nothing but a term sexists use to stifle discussion. please stop being a sexist
Weaksauce. Pretending to be the victim is both an obvious ploy and poor form. If you want to be taken seriously, don't resort to cheap tricks.
They also invented CDMA, which is the entire underlying tech of 3G networks
Wasn't that Hedy Lamarr?
If it causes the signal to be recorded or reproduced inaccurately, it's a defect.
By that measure, the vast majority of lenses are defective. Wide aperture lenses have a narrow depth of field (which is very desirable for many types of photos) but even if you use a small aperture to increase the depth of field, there's still an upper limit to the range of distances that are in focus. And the more you narrow the aperture, the less light you're going to get, which in turn increases the amount of time it takes to properly expose the photo, which in turn requires a stationary tripod mount and demands that the subject be perfectly still. Ever tried to get a kid to sit still through a long exposure? Yeah.
TL;DR: You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
It's not even about good cameras. It's about a software feature to emulate a defect in large aperture lenses even though the phone has a tiny lens that isn't susceptable to that defect
Nice try. That "defect in large aperture lenses" is at the very top of the list of any portrait photographer. Your attempt to spin it as a "defect" is weaksauce at best, and deliberately dishonest at worst.
I just can't understand buying a car only to be an errand car.
That's a bit dishonest. I very clearly said commute and errand car. That means I drive it every workday, and then some.
I understand that some people don't go on long trips, but you need to consider all uses for a vehicle, not the minimum use case.
My wife has her own car. If we have to go someplace out of range of the electric, we take hers.
The point I was trying to make is that an electric car meets the needs of many people. Almost every two-car family with a commute under 50 miles per day, for instance, could be very well served by an electric car.
Half of America thought the same thing about the last president.
Yes, this did. That said, their reasoning was pretty terrible.
Real people move more than 10 miles from where they were born. You should try getting out more with a real car and see the world.
Real people fly home to see their parents, as they are often well out of driving distance. It would take three days of driving (in an ICE car) to get from where I live to where my parents live.
You should try getting out more in order to understand that there's a whole world around you, filled with people with different needs than yours.
Electric cars suck.
I own an electric car, and am quite happy with it. It meets all my needs as a commuter and errand car. The range is limited, but my commute is only about 15 miles per day, so i only charge it once a week or so on standard US house current (120v).
Nobody wants one so the government is forcing you to buy a shit car.
I see scores of electric cars on the road every single day on my way to work. Clearly, your statement is without merit.
How about not making complex diagnosis of rare personality disorders online from a few lines of text?
You're paranoid.
You lost me at Texas. I lived in Texas for many years. It's a racist, redneck backwater, lacking both culture and world perspective.
No thanks.
I'm beyond sick of this SJW shit. I won't be watching this series.
There there, delicate snowflake. It'll be okay. Better to lock yourself into your safe space and avoid any further trigger warnings.
mean this particular time lord is male....now they're rewriting it so gender is only skin deep? These idiots really don't think things through when they ram down their wingnut agenda.
Your opinion is at odds with Doctor Who canon. There's nothing saying that this particular time lord is specifically male, or that this particular time lord can't change genders. We have hints that time lords can even change species.
This last companion, however, was an abomination of SJW-ness. Not a single episode went by without them putting some focus on her liking girls and/or (mostly and) some slavery reference. It was tedious, annoying, helped nothing, and damaged the story lines.
For my money, Bill was one of the most interesting companions in years. Your dislike of her says much more about you than it does about Bill.
The thing that's fucked is people like you thinking your edgy sarcasm is anything but garbage to dump into discussions.
And what, pray tell, did you contribute to the discussion?
It doesn't matter what I think, because I don't live in a swing state.
Have you heard? There's a whole world outside the US of motherfucking A. They have divergent opinions, and they're doing something about it with or without you.
That's not what SuperKendall wrote, and it's dishonest of you to imply that he did.
That's exactly what he wrote, and I stand by my statement.
For decades now, the deliberate creation of environmental panic has been used by unscrupulous alarmists like Al Gore to gain wealth and political power. The fear and hatred thus generated has been completely unnecessary, and done more harm than good.
And there it is, the unvarnished bullshit. Sorry, you're clearly far too biased to say anything meaningful in this conversation.