Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | LatteLazy's comments login

Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now.

And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable.

And of course inflation only robs holders, at least volatility goes in your favour half the time.

I also would not call it an investment: there is no reason to expect prices to rise. Bitcoin does not grow in the way a company can (making shares an investment) or pay interest like a bond. It's at best a speculative asset, like maybe gold?


> Bitcoin has been very stable against the USD for a while now.

But isn't stable against itself. People who got in first are infinitely richer than people who would buy it a generation from now.


Same for grandpa who got in first with farmland and just sold to housing developers. At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain.


> At least people a generation from now can go to GitHub and fork the btc or eth open source code and make a run at starting their own chain.

And that will help them how exactly? There are thousands of chains and coins with total adoption and value of zero


Agreed with this nuance w/ regards to investment vs. asset. But IMHO even if volatility goes in your favor half the time it's still not a viable alternative. If the value of an asset is dependent on what a future buyer is willing to pay for it without taking the implicit value into consideration I leave it as an exercise to the reader how this will end ;-)


>And that's just bitcoin, stable coins are more reliable.

Until they submit to agnostic third party audits, they're not stable.


Exactly. Brics is more a term used in the west to describe not-us large countries than anything that actually exists for those countries. India and China have an open conflict over their border for fucks sake. They're not uniting any time soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/india-accuses-...


> Brics is more a term used in the west to describe not-us large countries than anything that actually exists for those countries.

That’s where (as BRIC – without South Africa, though the countries together were sometimes called “the BRICs”) it originated 20+ years ago, but then the countries got together, for their own reasons, and made it an real (or, at least, formally official) bloc. Each of them uses it for their own image puffing, and its been particularly important in that role for Russia lately (especially with CSTO being shown to be worthless.) Still not clear that the bloc (despite having an official organization, membership, summits, etc.) is all that meaningful substantively.


First time I saw BRIC was over a decade ago plastered all over Brasil.


Seems fair. Don't embarrass your professional body or they will sanction you and may even expel you.


Question is, what do they do next? The training surely isn't going to change anything. He considers this kind of expression his bread and butter; they consider it professional misconduct.

Will they actually yank his license if he continues to engage in behavior that the licensing board consider unbecoming? And will a court uphold that?


Or it could be called "censoring critics via coercion"


[flagged]


any group that punishes criticism is destined for failure.

Censorship is something groups do, govts and beyond. When the govt requires you to be a member of an organization and that organization does these things, it's hard to argue your case that this is somehow devoid of govt connections

it's childish to call someone an idiot for having different opinions or beliefs, grow up


Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


[flagged]


Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: also, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. Can you please not? We ban that sort of account, regardless of ideology - see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for why.


I find the tone of these articles baffling.

China has refused to just live accept the US deciding it's not allowed to do AI? How surprising. Washington is pushing to ban something? No, Washington can just ban it. Ban or don't ban, there is no push.

Also phrasing it as US technology is misleading: the current chip leader is in Taiwan and the main kit comes from the Netherlands. No one is after "US Technology".

The US and China (and all other countries) have a right to pursue their own interests as long as they avoid certain extreme measures like actual war (something both those countries need to remember). And like it or not, they will. No one's law applies to anyone else except by mutual agreement. So Taiwan and SK (and anyone else) can continue exporting to China as long as they're happy to live with the consequences.

And I have been a hawk on china for a long time.


This is just slowing down their AI, not saying they won’t have it.

China has just built the largest combat hospital across from Taiwan and over a dozen huge air raid shelters. Xi also passed a law that said Taiwan verbally refusing to be under the CCP control is an act of war.

We are waiting for the leadership there to settle down and stop using AI for genocide, no need to make it easy for them.


To be worth a damn, CBDCs need to be anonymous and probably decentralised. Which no central bank has actually proposed yet. All the proposal so far are just the same as cash but with more downsides for the user. Personally I am no goldbug constantly sure bankers will steal my savings. But why would I use a CBDC when i gain nothing I cannot already do with cash (either actual folding money or in an account)?


I'm amazed Richard Dawkins wrote this, primarily because it makes cold hard factual errors about biology (you're very unlikely to get a Y chromosome from your mother, sex is not defined by him but all his examples of it are non binary etc).

The fact he doesn't answer his title question. Or that there is no comment on the social side of any of this are huge issues with the article, but you can miss them given the much bigger issue that he is just plain factually wrong!?

If it were funnier I'd have assumed it was a spoof piece. Or maybe someone else is called Richard Dawkins and is trading on the name of the famed author?


I attend the office 4.9 days a week on average because that suits my personality, responsibilities etc. But I do find it baffling: half the time I'm told not to interrupt engineers and we have a whole system to let them get on and work without people making them context switch. The other half of the time I'm told how important it is that we all be together in the same room to build community/relationships!?


Is there any actual evidence for this? The article is all hearsay...


Quoting an actual person at the scene is not hearsay, is it?


I don't see a quote from anyone who saw people turn around and die as a result. I see a quote from someone talking about how it would have been bad to make a wrong turn. And another about people stuck in traffic. But those are not the same as what the headline claims.

And those are the 2 salient points in an article thick with emotion and implications.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But they present no evidence to support their claims...

Given the general anarchy and confusion, I


More fool them.

Why not be fired at least?

Or if it really comes to it, Airbnb and sabotage things while you job hunt on company time.

I don't mean to victim blame but quietly signing the form they give you to admit defeat only encourages shitty behaviour by mega corps...


Cutting them off from world supplies is a pain in the arse for China in the short term, but a huge boon for them in the medium/long term. Now there is a huge market and motivated government. There is nothing magic about silicon that means China won't master it given the time and motivation...

And given that the west either really needs AI to be worth a damn (and a defendable advantage) or we're one step closer to the Chinese century or whatever dramatic thing were calling it...


Your first paragraph remains to be seen and the second is hilariously pro-Chinese. There’s little reason to think the Chinese can actually compete with the US without their help, let alone the entire western world.


My statement isn't meant to be pro Chinese. And saying "don't underestimate china" is only pro Chinese if you think underestimating China is a good idea...

Also, in this matter, China is not competing with the US. The US already lost out to Taiwan in semiconductor manufacturing. The idea that there is something magic about the US and no Chinese people could ever compete with us is at best very silly.


Why are you mixing up Chinese ppl and China? Taiwan is not China. If your are talking about the race there are Chinese everywhere.


I haven't mixed them up. I think Chinese people are capable of producing just as good a quality of chips as non Chinese people. Apparently that's controversial!?

Also I did not say Taiwan is China. No idea where you got that?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: