154 karma · joined January 24, 2018
I think this will absolutely change the content space. We will see smaller groups of individuals able to make animated-films, add-special effects to their video-projects, etc. Get ready ready to see more content geared for the fringes of society, and thus amplification of their preferences in media, politics, etc.
If your passion is painting, and its something you would do for free, then fulfilling your artistic potential is still work. It still requires hours upon hours of deliberate practice. The great masters would spend years working on a single painting. You don't think there would be times when they just didn't feel like making progress? Where they wanted to just take the day off and hang out at a bar with their friends?
Part of the human condition is struggle, imo. That's what I think the OP is getting at when he says that human beings need work. Maybe not a 9-5, but we all need something worth staving off instant gratification for.
I feel the real interesting point is that he was interested in the unknown, and back in those days they didn't have the modern distinctions between what we now consider as natural and supernatural.
Seems that if you want to make progress in human knowledge, you assume the risk of doing things that appear frivolous or just stupid in hindsight.
They're banking on being people's default retailer which lets them get away with this behavior.
If the husband and wife agree that they want to use their combined paternity/maternity in a given way, who are you or I to tell them that they can't? The wife could just as well force the husband to take care of the child and work on her own next book. Or the pair could stagger their leaves so that they spend equal time taking care of the baby.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that, as a society, we ought to value childcare/child-rearing and (perhaps monetarily) support those who perform this service. But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.
If by your answer you mean something else, why didn't you just say so instead of being so cryptic?
>The country’s capital city has seen over four months of protest after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government enacted agricultural laws that would adversely affect farmers across India.
However, from speaking to people and watching interviews where people discuss *the actual bill itself*, the only answer I ever hear is something along the lines of, "this bill *could potentially* lead to things that are bad."
I'm asking from a place of good-faith here, but what separates claims that the farm bill is bad from blatant fear-mongering?
* Maximum of $1000 being able to be invested on the platform
* A small fee being taken by PredictIt out of every bet.
Namely, the author names one sort of bias that led 'Very Smart People' to give an outsized likelihood of Trump winning:
>I remember thinking at the time that this particular opinion of his was over-confident, perhaps even a result of over-internalizing the heuristic that if a viewpoint seems clever and contrarian then it is likely to be correct.
Doesn't this explain crypto-user's pro-Trump bias? Someone who uses crypto as a way to play on a prediction market is necessarily going to be contrarian, to some degree (remember we're being constantly bombarded by claims of how all crypto is "just speculation"). In the same way, believing Trump actually has a case for overturning the election results is a highly contrarian view.
Yes but the amount of amber, gold, silver, etc. on Earth is a known unknown. There are presumably deposits of gold that we don't yet know about. The amount of BTC is known. You seem to be conflating rarity with fixed scarcity.
> Using existing anti-money-laundering laws & global institutions, you'd be effectively banned from getting back any value from your BTCs (or, doing so would expose you to all the associated risks).
While this is true, this is sort of the whole point of bitcoin. Like, it's a currency that is independent of any nation-state and acts as a sort of systemic-hedge against governmental incompetence/malfeasance. So the fact that it could even be banned by any particular country is kind of part of its value proposition. And, similar to VPN's, just because an IP-based technology is banned doesn't mean that it'd become impossible to use.