The DDR/BDR wealth/income divide is still significant, even today and in spite of the government's fairly aggressive taxes explicitly earmarked to develop the former DDR.
And if you compare current eastern Germany as opposed to the DDR, current inhabitants have it so much better. Another group that did not improve are the stans (Kazakstan and related countries).
This has a lot of hype and opinion but very little substance. Respectfully, whoever wrote it needs to actually talk to people building things in the space instead of telling them what they are doing. There are small/partial examples of the clickbait title happening but they're few and far between and I saw none of them cited here.
Also of note, open dialogue, while not stylish in our current zeitgeist, is absolutely necessary and should be actively encouraged among all stakeholders even those that may have opposing views of the future. This is in regard specifically tho not exclusively to the Brian Armstrong/Pelosi convo. Anyone that's been around crypto long enough has seen someone finally grok the potential it brings for disparate, and disagreeing people to work together to accomplish shared goals / public goods.
> the potential it brings for disparate, and disagreeing people to work together to accomplish shared goals / public goods
Do you have examples of crypto allowing disagreeing parties to work together? Preemptively, I don’t think things like AMMs qualify since the parties are not really any more “disagreeing” than any negotiation or trade, and there is no shared goal.
I really enjoyed Fooling Some of the People All of the Time by David Einhorn. He goes clearly and deeply into his suspicions about Allied Capital, a company that he thought/thinks had unethical/illegal accounting and business practices.
I wouldn't call quanta overhyped. Implications are at best embellished very modestly for entertainment purposes, but they do a very good job of staying true to the original paper and communicating some of the main ideas in a less-dumbed-down version than SA, and less ridiculously inaccurate/overhyped way than say physorg.
Maybe the physics/math editor/writers are better than the biology. I don't read the bio articles, so I can't comment directly about them. I just read the compsci/physics/math and they're not that bad.
Most/all of the coal plants that have been shut down in the USA in the past decade or so due to tightening regulations are sold (at an immense discount) and then shipped in pieces to China and started up again for the rest of their depreciable life (coal plants generally have a breakeven date 15 years after they start producing, and 30-40 years total before decommission).
China also has far less stringent regulations on pollutants, so net loss for global pollutant emission prevention.
