Sounds like the opposite of housing from a national security POV. If a Chinese national buys a house in the US, then the US has 'control' over their property. The US would want Chinese nationals to buy houses in the US.
In some countries housing supply is limited and the housing market can be messed with by influx of foreign ownership. Possibly less of an issue with US due to size of the country. Still, I think if someone can buy land here, we should be able to buy land there (within reason)?
If the news is to be believed, housing supply is limited in the US.
US Housing is generally a safe investment for foreign investors. Since US vestigial racist policies make it difficult to create dense, affordable housing, single family homes are in high demand and relatively limited supply.
Just tax the hell out of that property and use that money to build more housing. Much like many countries charge foreign students more and use that money to educate their own citizens.
The article mentions the Lebanese pound has "lost more than 90% of its value". For an equivalent loss in value from holding USDT that would mean that each USDT is only backed by 10 cents of value? I mean there are certainly arguments to be made about how much value is actually backing USDT but to claim that it's only 10% seems way off. I think people would be shocked and there would be crypto-wide panic if USDT dropped to 85 cents on the dollar. If USDT 'collapses' that does not mean that one USDT is worth 0$ only that the value drops enough that it causes a structurally significant sell-off. This is what people worry about, not USDT becoming worthless. If I'm Lebanese, yes I'll take the USDT
To give maybe a good parallel take a look at clients of Bernie Madoff's fund. This was by all measures considered a 'collapse' and a 'disaster' but when all was said and done clients still recovered 70-80% of their claims. Granted it took a long time ~10yrs or so but still a very far cry from 10%
USDT is hosted on Ethereum. The value of the USDT coin does not come from cryptocurrency as you've correctly pointed out, it comes from centralized authority backing USDT. But what part does come from cryptocurrency is the decentralized tracking of account balances. If it were't for the Ethereum blockchain, the only alternative would be to get physical USD into the country or for a Lebanese individual to open up a bank account denominated in USD (which is most likely illegal and impossible). So crypto is actually part of the solution here. Hope that makes sense
its not illegal or impossible to open a USD bank account for the lebanese. In fact, its extremely common.
The problem is that now it just extremely risky
Most of the upper class has the USD denominated savings effectively kidnapped by their bank institution. Those funds are frozen or very highly capped (only say $200 $USD draw per week). No one can take them out in large chunks. It is extremely difficult to make payroll for staff (many companies paid payroll in USD instead of lira before the crisis).
You can use USD deposits to buy assets or cancel debt though. As long as the receiver / beneficiary of your money another lebanese bank. So, you can pay your debts, or transfer your money to someone else in lebanon. But you can't take physical dollars out for the same purpose.
There is also the concept of "fresh money" by which the bank will let you take out any money that you have recently received from abroad. That's what is making everyday living bearable for a lot of lebanese
Thanks for providing some nuance on the banking accounts. It's helpful to be able to compare crypto's impact (which I still think is substantial) against a realistic situation instead of the "centralized strawmen" that seem so common in crypto arguments.
It's worth noting that this - and other non-crypto remittance schemes - rely on the end exchange agent having access to large amounts of physical US cash.
This article doesn't go into where that comes from, but it's not unusual for criminal gangs to launder money this way. The agent themselves might not be a criminal, but they take often use the cash supplies from one and transfer back the value somewhere else (via a legitimate business) less a commission.
Tether is on record as censoring transactions (remember the Poly Network fiasco?). They are clearly centrally controlled despite being a token on the Ethereum network.
Whether they should have censored transactions in that instance is irrelevant. The fact remains that the coin does not belong to it's holders.
Assuming 8hr work days and a 250 day working year for humans. No such constraints for robots. That's 2,000 hrs/yr for a human vs 8,760 (assuming 24/7) hours for a robot. Obviously there will be other costs for robots (downtime, electricity, repair etc) so no telling whether it will be worth it in the long run but the hour calculation there does seem a little off.
I think that's fine because WASM isn't meant to write code in. It's just a source language for other compiled languages. I'm assuming the javascript complaints you're talking about are because people actually have to write javascript code?
Even then I don't think they would tie it to the WASM definition that tightly as they intend it to be used on other platforms than just web browsers. It seems to me that you could just have the DOM be expressed as a kind of interface which the browser implements, and then each language just has a DOM library which exposes that interface to the programmer.
If smartphones are any indication, VR on the go will happen eventually, without a doubt. If it's not this model that popularizes it, it will be some other model.
what idiot is going to take his oculus go with him on the go?
I really think you are underestimating people here
Unfortunately from reading the first couple of chapters it seems like this textbook doesn't do an excellent job of favoring graphics over formula. It's acceptable but really nothing stellar. I don't think it does the title of 'Applied Category Theory' justice. It is still very much theoretical.
Conveying intuition is about way more than using graphics. It's about storytelling. I've seen people focus on graphics and fail in a hundred ways, while overwhelming theoretical works shine due to the focus on the narrative.
Once you've accepted that reality = reality and that to discuss reality, humans always need to revert to models, then any further discussion of the nature of reality seems like a dead end. Because any way you try to discuss it is a simplification. Maybe it's more accurate to just accept that we're firmly in the realm of models and forget about trying to define reality itself. So in that way it becomes kind of pointless to discuss the nature of reality.
