Pix sounds great for most people and probably a good replacement for government issued paper notes and metal coins. But, the crypto purists like crypto that is not controlled by the government or the banks. Pix would obviously fail at attracting those crypto fans.
The author believes that plain text should encode bold, italic, etc., because that's all they had exposure to. Were the text written today, they would claim emojis belong in unicode as well.
Most social media don't support it, but on Tumblr, for example, you can specify the color of the text and even choose a different font. I think there was some other social media that allowed you to have animated effects on the text as well, but I forgot the name.
Which adds complexity and solves nothing. We'd better have a standard markup (we already have) than this half-assed wannabe-markup that is so complex and a minefield that modern forums tend to filter it anyway. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_super... – The wikipedia article about unicode sub/superscripts can't even render half of these symbols on neither of my {ios,windows,android} devices. In theory we have it, in practice it's dead baggage.
>It makes me wonder though - whether it’s more valuable to spend a year on a scene that most people won’t pay that much attention to (artists will understand and appreciate, maybe pause and rewind and replay and examine the details, the casual viewer just enjoy at a glance) or use tools in addition to your own skills to knock it out of the park in a month and make more great things.
If they didn't spend a year on it they wouldn't be copied now.
The quiet majority who avoids such things are easily lost among all the pump and dump nonsense. A ~single digit percentage of the general population has basically zero morality, but they can have a huge impact.
I realized it was likely a profitable long term investment back when bitcoin was ~10-15$, but I objected to it on moral grounds and didn’t get involved. It’s not even something I regret, just another life choice.
If I buy and hold 1 kg of gold, in 50 years humanity still has that same 1kg of gold but it lost all the resources required to secure that gold from being stolen. As such buying gold “to hold” is actively harmful for humanity, the same is true of crypto.
I object to doing things that bring me wealth at the expense of humanity as IMO it’s just a diffuse form of theft. While you may disagree, I hope you can understand that such a stance is based on my personal morality.
In this framework, what kinds of assets are you allowed to own the title towards, and what forms of income and revenue are you allowed to have? are there other forms of wealth - like non-financial/social - that you weigh?
Personally I think most productive investments are a net positive which opens many options here. It’s mostly zero sum / predatory behavior like the worst pay to win games or online casinos that I have a problem with. A fast food restaurant isn’t serving particularly healthy food, but it is providing a service people want and minimizing food borne illnesses etc.
Similarly buying a T-Bill may arguably support some of the horrors that the US government does, but what are the alternatives revolutions and lawless societies suck.
What about you? What do you the externalities of various investments are?
so basically this framework only excludes spot commodities. yeah its not common for people to be permanently bullish on commodities outside of a few niches like bitcoin and precious metals, so you don’t hear too much about that aside from those communities.
yeah that makes it easy to adhere to, while many other asset classes dont really revolve around scarcity of the asset’s existence and ownership does convey access to a productivity. I understand your criteria now.
For me I don’t have that criteria and don’t mind zero sum things. Its an entertaining and stressful player versus player match in a massive multiplayer game. Some kinds of trades I make are not zero sum, but it’s not an important distinction for me.
I do have a criteria related to human suffering: I mainly avoid exposure to some sectors like defense contracting and publicly traded prisons. Because the incentives are out of whack and dehumanize people while hoping they suffer, said in obtuse terms.
I think there is a flaw in the resource exchange logic you presented. Where you owning 1 kg of gold means the effort to extract that gold had gone to waste. In spot commodities the scarcity and continued demand at higher prices of the commodity is what justifies the further investment into extracting that commodities from harder to reach places. If a single market participant finds utility from the use of that commodity, distinct from hoarding, then acquiring access to more is beneficial. Your hoarding helped. The main difference here is that you are looking at the resource expenditure to acquire the unit you are owning, as opposed to the future utility created by the scarcity you contribute to. That’s a choice, I wonder if there is room to re-evaluate that principle, as I’m not sure we are operating on the same information.
> If a single market participant finds utility from the use of that commodity, distinct from hoarding, then acquiring access to more is beneficial. Your hoarding helped.
Talking about marginal quantity for tiny fractions of a commodity get abstract so let’s scale it up and the assign a fraction of the difference to that 1kg.
Total quantity of gold in earths crust is constant, so let’s assume what changes is the timing of when a mine gets opened. IE a bit of land is either mined in 1975 vs 2025.
Everything else being equal it’s more efficient to mine today vs 50 years ago both from an effort perspective and environmental impact. EV mining equipment for example is a lot more common today than 50 years ago, they are also a lot safer. Thus removing 1kg of gold from the market for 50 years is also a dead loss.
Correct, and that EV mining equipment was only pursued because that 1kg of gold is $100,000 now instead of $5,750 in 1975. because of that constant quantity that is now unavailable. If gold was still worth $5,750/kg, it wouldn't matter what policy changes about mining regulations were done, nobody would pursue creating the more expensive equipment and mining gold.
The conclusion in your stated logic is to actually hoard as much gold as possible so that mining in the year 2075 is even more EV+ and safer.
Gold mining alone has basically zero impact on Caterpillar’s R&D into EV mining equipment. The mining industry mines vastly more copper, iron, tin, etc ore and gold is at such low concentrations it’s basically indistinguishable from other types of mining until chemical separation.
If nobody was holding gold as a store of value there’d be a glut of gold for industry and ~zero gold mining the next ~hundred years. Holding gold ultimately means mining sooner not later.
I have counterpoints to that, but my main disagreement is where you draw the line. This feels arbitrary. You look at present energy expenditure as waste, if the asset itself is not consumed for an equally arbitrary reason that you approve of, or generates an even more valuable asset or ongoing revenue stream. I view it as all intertwined with commodity economics whether prices are cyclical, seasonal, or permanently bullish. Low float assets aren’t controversial, a small trading or consumed supply dictates the value of the entire supply, for balance sheets, lending, securitization and more.
How? Efficiency of scale can never drive marginal coasts below 0.
> You look at present energy expenditure as waste, if the asset itself is not consumed for an equally arbitrary reason that you approve of, or generates an even more valuable asset or ongoing revenue stream.
I think you’re missing my point, a gold ring may be purely decorative but people actually want the ring. A gold bar sitting in a safety deposit box for decades is there purely an investment, the nature as a physical piece of gold is essentially irrelevant the person wants is a store of value not gold. At that point why not simply leave the gold unearth and use the potential location of a mine as a store of value?
IE, for a 50 gallon drum of oil to be sitting in my basement it must have already been extracted from the earth. We don’t extract oil as fast as possible and store it because the ground itself was already storing it instead people pump faster or slower in response to market conditions that’s efficient unlike silver, gold, etc sitting in a vault.
Thus using mined gold as an investment is simply inherently wasteful, a pure dead loss for humanity.
If people could use oil as an investment they would. It’s perishable and toxic to store.
I understand your position. It doesn’t matter that you overlook key economic relationships in environmentally friendly methods, and you don’t recognize how illiquid balance sheets drive markets through lending and collateral or consider that utility, the goal post moves to disliking the extraction method occurring at all.
I recognize that my counterpoints are all capitalist rationalizations and can be used to rationalize anything.
The difference between oil and silver / gold is only the scale of economic loss.
People have used physical oil as an investment, unrefined oil is stable across millions of years. The underlying economics mean people only attempt it in the short term when the price is unusually low. Or as a state sponsored hedge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_...
Even on something as anonymous as 4chan where all comments are posted in chrono order I see a difference in behavior after they added direct links to comments so one could easily see how many reactions your comment got as opposed to actually reading every comment.
>Even a terrible MS Paint drawing is more interesting than an AI-generated image
True and factual. I don't get why people don't just take pictures from Flickr, CC BY-SA, just post it and link the author. Having an AI-generated image in your writing makes me think the whole text is also AI-generated.
By the way, the best thing you can do for skimmers is include images, because they break the flow of text. You can also try using headings that stand out for having inverted colors for example, but people generally don't do that with markdown and generic heading CSS.
Until this line I forgot crypto was even competing!