The best explanation I've heard for why he'd stop with this region is to keep Ukraine out of NATO, which is a desire Russia has expressed before. The theory goes that a country with an active regional dispute would not be allowed to join. Probably (my interpretation) because it could immediately trigger the joint defense pact. No doubt nothing here is being done for the sake of the people there. The truth is no one knows what will happen, and if they do they won't tell you. News sources and governments have their own incentives and biases that encourage them to propose a maximalist idea of the situation.
It does matter: wealth represents resources. Huge wealth inequality allocates resources, and therefore decisions of how to allocate those resources, into a small number of hands. Take Bezos' rocket and mega yacht. Is that a useful way to to apply the huge amount of materials and labor it took to create? What could we have done instead?
You need to read this not as an assessment of merit, but as a strategic outlook. Central banks see crypto as dangerous to the economy and threatening to their power and their country's sovereignty. Central banks have a lot of power. It stands to reason that they will use that power with the aim of either destroying or co-opting the technology. The merits of cryptocurrency and its underlying ideology are unimportant, because those building and using it (for the most part) and negligible power compared to the institutions it would threaten.
As someone who just sold their home and is currently renting while waiting for a correction, I definitely want this to be true. Why are you confident those factors, absent a rate intervention, will produce a correction?
The article claims Matterium solves four big problems in commerce, including being able to know if shoes will fit before receiving them, but provides absolutely nothing to validate any of them.
This economist contradicts himself several times. He alternately says cryptocurrencies are and are not a real currency. He also says economists aren't really qualified to analyze the space, which is interesting because he starts off by saying his role as a monetary theorist makes him uniquely qualified to do just that.
The quality of being exchangeable for goods doesn't make it a currency. Even if it were a currency, it would be a very bad one without many of the properties required for sound monetary policy.
The number of people who'd do something like this is miniscule. Human society is built on trust for a good reason. We know that rules are imperfect and trust our fellow humans to do the right thing. They don't always but most of the time, the average person will.
> If users change their opinions easily, they will be attracted to the extreme ends of the polarity spectrum.
This is an interesting result. In general, I think most would agree it's a good thing to change your opinion based on new information. Yet if their model is correct, doing so leads one away from what the author implies is the ideal neutral position. So, is it a bad thing to change your mind, or do thinking people naturally gravitate away from "ideal" neutrality?
They're not comparable if you see YouTube as just a company. But you can look at it differently. It is also an organization with total authority over a widely used realm of global public discourse. It can use that power to determine what you hear and see, including both censorship and promotion via "the algorithm". It has massive economic and political influence. Careers are built on its platform, and it has effectively unlimited resources to manipulate politicians and effect policies to its benefit. All this, and it is 100% undemocratic, unresponsive in nearly every way to even those within the organization much less the greater public.
To be clear, governments turning away from even what is mostly limited representative democracy is very worrying. But it's also fair to worry about corporate power.
Tech companies only stand to gain from partnering with an invasive government. The idea that they'd side with us over the state that regulates them and provides a market to seek profit is a fantasy
With regard to your first problem, it may be hard but should result in a more thoroughly decentralized system, no? And on the second, I thought PoS is orders of magnitude less compute-intensive?
One nuance this summary misses is that there was a serious hesitancy among Northern politicians to seriously address the slavery issue. While many believed it was abominable, they didn't step up to stop it because it would shake up the status quo which by and large benefited them.
I don't like either of your or rubocop's approach. If you have that many conditionals, bind a local variable that describes the condition being checked. Then you have an easy to read `if` with a single variable.
It's not possible to get the autocomplete unless the function/method you're calling takes a union. Many libraries can't do that because they need to be flexible in what they receive. So yeah, you can define a union, but editors don't have the context to know your union applies to the call.
In some cases you can use it to define string arguments to an external library. Maybe table names to an ORM or a well-known file path. This helps because you get autocomplete from typing `MyEnum.` and seeing options, even though the external function takes a plain string.
If you maintain the same interface (same classes, methods, types, etc) it seems to me a module ought to be hot-reloadable within the same process. This is already possible with a loosely-coupled plugin architecture and I could see it being an integrated part of a language.
If you strip out the woke language, it's pretty easy to see this as factual. The Jedi absolutely are a police force. They often use violence and psychic manipulation through the Force. They are arguably a religious force, pursuing a fairly ascetic lifestyle consistent with a monk.
It seems different to me. To be completely visually (and maybe auditorally) detached from your physical surroundings for hours each day? That's a step beyond working at a desk, even one in a drab office building. Though point taken, being stuck at a cubicle isn't much better than being strapped into a headset.
This sounds awful. I already feel disconnected from the world around me, my community, nature, fresh air. Why would anyone want this for themselves? To be productive? If this is the next step in productivity, we need to start looking at how to be less productive.
Sure, what do I care? I care about people not corporations. There are competitors salivating to scoop up any devs who are out of a job if Google goes under.