that's a valid question. three reasons why bitcoin & crypto is NOT like gold and very dangerous. 1) limited supply: drives up price enormously. almost endless. minimal supply, infinitely increasing demand. depending on how far this will go it can potentially suck up all liquidity in the world. 2) no authority, no price stabilization, meaning extreme volatility that adds fuel to vol & price rise, 3) ease of access: anyone can buy with a dollar, also fueling to vol & price rise.
how bitcoin will end looks very ugly to me in any case. either collapsing a global economy or bringing an unprecedented global inflation
the reason why crypto is dangerous is because it's very, very easy to get a piece of it. it is open to anyone and you can buy for just a dollar. this drives up price unlike anything out there. yes anything can be a store of value with enough people believing in it. bitcoin succeeded in generating large enough followers to drive up its price like crazy. if it continues, it will suck up capital from all other asset classes - which in turn create a huge global inflation. losing value is one problem and the global inflation crypto will bring, if left unregulated, is another problem.
any country that allows crypto as an asset will risk an enormous bubble in their economy. it will eventually suck up all capital from other asset class, because crypto can never lose value unless people stop believing in it. the only reason why people believe in crypto as an asset is because the price keeps rising, and it's because there is limited supply. it is exactly same as how art market works. if anyone fully understands what this means then they will know cryptos are extremely dangerous.
you can make it illegal for a bank to do business with crypto exchanges like what SK is doing right now. If all G10 currency do this then it can kill the bubble in crypto. I actually think this is a better move for crypto's future.
Bitcoin and cryptos ought to be banned for good. Cryptocurrencies are scam and outright bubble that will bring down the world economy. There is no currency without an authority to guarantee its value. Cryptos are pure bubble. If there is any good in this thing, it's ease of transaction, which is a question of underlying technology - it has nothing to do with lack of authority or decentralized scheme that cryptocurrencies tout as so important (and fail to deliver).
When a bubble bursts, it's not just about some people, but it brings down the whole economy. I can't believe people have already forgotten what CDO has done to this economy. Bitcoin & cryptos are financial weapons of mass destruction. Any responsible government ought to outright ban them all already.
I just wanted to say that be careful about lowering your price just because you can. You should charge a price that maximizes your profit. Don't charge low just because you can, unless you have a reason (company philosophy, growth, etc.). Business usually exists to maximize profit. If you are priced a lot lower than your competition, double check whether your price is too low.
This is a terrible jab at Uber. I expected Bloomberg for higher journalistic standard than this.
1. What does "two female friends" have to do with driver's argument with Kalanick? Should've cut that out. I read it as slimy ad hominem to reinforce bias on Uber's culture. Uber might have some culture problem, but it is completely unrelated with driver's issue.
2. Does driver's argument have any basis? The piece merely draws attention to Kalanick and driver's tension - is Bloomberg now a TMZ for business world?
I think Uber has bright future, but I really doubt about current valuation. What's looking bright for them is that they can replace their drivers with self-driving cars eventually. By then core business competency completely transforms into capital and technology which Uber has built quite a strength. Looking at what they are right now, Uber and Lyft are both pseudo technology company that haven't added that much innovation to current landscape (different markets have different experience, i.e. SF vs NYC). But can we expect huge profitability in the future? I doubt it - they have to maintain a fleet of cars which are quite expensive to maintain, and they cannot drive out competition completely (DOJ will never allow this). Bottom line? Very competitive pricing in the future, some profitability, however I doubt margin will be good.
This is very true. Hierarchy is hierarchy. Any organization can pretend they don't have such blasphemous thing, but if that was really true then there would be no "management" to begin with. What's wrong with accepting a leader as leader? You can't have it both ways - either you lead or be led. There's no equal footing there.
It's not about making everyone equal at all times. What's important is how do you choose a leader and when.
I think The Office was a huge success without any the characteristics you point out. I don't think it's about the setting per se, but whether the material connects with the viewer in a particular way.
I agree - China is NOT going through the same trajectory as developed countries. China's population is multiple times greater, which creates far greater segmented market and demand. World is also going through information technology revolution -- explosive increase in productivity, extremely pace of information dissemination. It's just not the same and nobody can be sure what it's going to be like.
The core issue here is that there is no included standard package in Javascript. It happened because Javascript did not have authoritative implementation when it first began. Next ECMA should require to pack some batteries in to avoid this micro-module hell.
That extraneous tooling killed React for me. React itself is simple and easy, I agree with that. But getting things wired up so that you can develop a real application? I think I lost a good day or two on it. Even after I was set up, honestly there were a lot of tweaks left such that I didn't really get to where I wanted to be. Also I can't really see where things might break down in between. It's enough to be frustrated with the code itself, let alone getting bogged down in a long, incomprehensible path along the build pipeline.
Economics is a study on how to distribute finite resource. Traditional economics have only considered unbounded input resource such as air. Now we're entering an age where we'll be having near-infinite output resource. Nuclear fission energy, robot labor, and maybe even creativity. Economics needs to branch out to think about how near-infinite output resource can be fairly distributed.
Unless there is another language that beats Python in terms of simplicity of toolchain, deployment and syntax, Python is not going to die. Very few people care about the performance of a language (this is same as asking whether Intel i5 or i7 is a better choice when most of what you'll be using is Microsoft Word or PowerPoint), and Python provides reasonable and handy solution to that problem as well (pypy).
Bottom line is that performance does not predict whether a language will die or live. That's not what most people care about.
I think this is a sensible decision until safety concerns have been adequately addressed. Innovation is great, shorter delivery time is awesome, but not at the expense of safety of general public.
I was in the same situation. In my case the reason why the co-founders left wasn't told was because the reason was that they thought their partner was too naive and incompetent to work with. Not something so easy to say straight to the face. In hindsight, I think there was no wrong in feeling betrayed in my case, but at the same time the co-founders did no wrong either. We were too inexperienced to handle the situation gracefully. Break-ups can't be amicable all the time. Everyone has their side of story.
Surely nobody's going to call an Asian a white -- I think he just meant to say that it's becoming less meaningful to group Asians among minorities in demographic analysis, perhaps because Asians are showing similar pattern as "whites".
Ghost promised to be a simple blogging platform. It's simple if you use it as installed. It's not so straightforward to tweak and upgrade. I'm not very excited about it anymore.
Author's description of startup reality is certainly plausible, however I believe author's view is too grim. Startup is where ideas that nobody are willing to try otherwise are implemented. Theoretically bigger corporations with far greater resources can do it, but we all know that's not how it happens. From the corporate viewpoint it may be "low-overhead, low-risk R&D", but as a society we all (arguably) benefit from it -- monetary incentive helps it for sure.
With this acquisition I have to say that there is a technology bubble right now. Someone may make some smart arguments to justify the deal, but even with all the reasonable factors considered it is extremely unlikely that Klout is worth $200MM.
Also worthy to note, some neurologists believe that burn out may be a result of effort and reward imbalance, more so than physical drain. I believe this is known as effort reward imbalance theory.
This is what I figure as well. Sourcing and incentive structure Google has in place for recruiting naturally gives "do not hire" note won't be respected. It's a problem that needs a systematic solution, but probably not worth the cost to fix it.
This law is about giving a choice to the consumer. It doesn't prevent carriers or manufacturers from pre-installing apps. All it says is make the app deletable. Would you also say all the other opt-outs as "unwarranted government intervention"?
I don't get it, what does this stats have to do with YC? Are you trying to say that disproportionate amount of resource is being invested in AIDS over preventing hunger on the aggregate level, and that it is wrong?