ayngg

I think like he said, it is all trust. Without trust, people are wary of your motivations. When you are in that position, having the people you don't trust do things like promote the narrative of "trust science" just looks like they are using scientists as mouthpieces to co-opt their trust to push a narrative. Moderating misinformation looks like censorship, mandates look like coercion, etc.

Overall it was just a colossal failure of communication by policy makers, who had already eroded most of their trust before the pandemic, which then got exacerbated by contemporary journalism that felt like it had no qualms about making everything as divisive as possible for engagement.

I don't think people have lost trust in science, but politicians using "science" in this way of communication are doing a pretty good job of trying to erode that trust.

I think you have to look at art and collecting art in general to get an idea of what is happening. When rich people spend big money on art, it is less about having a nice painting and more about things like flexing wealth, tax avoidance, being part of the provenance or whatever. People think that the most expensive painting ever sold, Salvator Mundi, which sold for ~450m, is sitting in storage somewhere in Switzerland. You also have to consider that for these people, it isn't actually a lot of money for them. They are the foundation for the mania that dogpiles on top.

These early NFTs are going to be like the early works of an art movement, and the iconic ones are probably going to be valuable to some degree just because of their place in art history. The art world has probably been waiting for the next kind of innovative movement to come along too. It is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy in that the ones that are bought for absurd amounts of money create the buzz that solidifies them as iconic pieces of the movement. Most will probably end up being worthless.

Art NFTs are like a tiny proof of concept of the idea of NFTs having value. The space, like crypto, is like a sandbox of primitives and people are just figuring things out, throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. That creative environment is probably alluring to people in boring dev jobs who have the financial flexibility to explore. I think it just looks stupid to many because it is basically a completely chaotic wild west where basically nobody knows what is actually going on in terms of a big picture, and so much dumb stuff happens which the media loves talking about for clickbait so that is what everyone sees and uses to form their opinion of it.

I think you have to take into consideration that Apple has been providing their offerings for over a decade now (starting with A4 in 2010) and have their own special license to design their own chips that use ARM instructions, while this is I believe Google's first offering and it is done through Samsung and is sort of like an exynos+ rather than a completely new design.

Maybe after a few more iterations it will be more competitive, maybe they actually get to design their own architecture or they could do the Google thing and just give up a few years from now and sunset tensor.

This is what I wonder, since I thought what most consider stablecoins now (like Tether) are basically steppingstones towards things like Maker/ Dai, which I am unsure how they would fit into this kind of regulation.

Calgary, even with recent economic struggles, has been a sort of magical Christmas land with relatively high wages, low cost of living and urban sprawl development to meet demand. I don't think there are many other places in Canada that tick all those boxes.

It isn't specific to Singapore, but the entire region. In the early 19th century there was huge demand for Asian goods in the west, which led to a huge trade disparity because China had little interest in western goods. The British East India Company was able to negate that through smuggling opium to such a degree that it was emptying the Chinese coffers and caused a drug abuse epidemic, which then forced China into conflict with Britain. This led to the Treaty of Nanking starting a trend of colonial subjugation and weakening of the Qing Empire and is considered the beginning of Century of Humiliation in China.

Then you have to take the additional context of how power coalesced in many of these Asian tiger economies through strong authoritarian governments during their modernization and independence. I do not think it is a stretch to think that other nations in the region, especially those with close proximity to China, or have large Chinese populations (like Singapore), saw how unbelievably poorly this went for China, which probably contributed to the extreme measures used to prevent recreational drug contraband from being used in their societies.

It is pretty easy to criticize social policy like this in a vacuum but really the extremely hard stance regarding drug contraband in that region is at the very least understandable given the historical context.

Is this a case of soft bigotry of low expectations alluded to by GWB? I don't follow this issue particularly, but at first glance like things like the No Child Left Behind initiative end up simply lowering expectations of lagging students instead of raising achievement, which admittedly seems to be a much more difficult problem to solve.

Generally the most outspoken climate change activists are the ones that will be affected the least by the costs of policy. The worst that will happen to them is there might be a little more crime in their area or things might be a little more expensive, things of that nature.

Meanwhile the monumental social and economic upheaval it would likely cause would mimic the American Midwest after de-industrialization in many places. Maybe we should tell them all to learn how to code and it would miraculously solve everything.

I am not saying that there is blame or not, it isn't so much blame as recognizing that there are different circumstances between Alberta and Norway that influenced the direction they went.

The big example is the National Energy Program which (aside from its economic impact on the province) basically tainted politics in Alberta and probably contributed to their hesitancy to contribute to a fund which could potentially be raided by the Federal government in the future.

Coinbase hits a unique intersection of outrage here since it provokes vitriol from both people who hate cryptocurrency, and those that are outspoken progressives, both of which are large demographics on HN.

Like when you think about it, how is this a big deal in any way? I think the fact that people are making a big deal out of it is a bigger deal than whatever Coinbase's internal practices are here.

A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did. I have my doubts about whether or not a federal government that has done something like the National Energy Program would allow a province within their country to hold a sovereign wealth fund worth hundreds of billions, or even over a trillion dollars.

One fairly common pattern seen is that companies develop in a nascent space where there were few rules and were therefore able to basically outrun regulation/ the law that moves very slowly. When that regulation eventually comes it ends up solidifying the monopolistic advantage by essentially creating a moat and closing the door on practices that helped create such growth in the first place. I think when stakes are that high, companies are generally rewarded and incentivized to be unscrupulous rather than virtuous, especially when the unscrupulous actors just become wealthy enough to buy out the virtuous ones.

I wouldn't be surprised if we are currently in the middle of a version of this regarding social media and how privacy of personal information is handled right now.

Keep in mind, what I wrote essentially was condensed version of what was said in the video, which itself was in response to several other videos so the points made are specifically targeting other claims, there is a lot of nuance in delivery that I discarded for the sake of brevity, for example, but point 1 was addressing a claim another popular video discussing domestic (American) emissions of livestock agriculture. Some of your points are discussed in the video but I was really just giving cliff notes to the original responder.

Arguments that meat take an excessive amount of resources are disingenuous because those resources cannot simply be translated to other uses, examples being that the water use example many tout uses rainwater would fall anyways, that livestock will eventually urinate meaning it isn't actually lost, and land used for livestock is mostly non arable land and therefore cant be used for producing crops anyways. Also there is a relationship between livestock, agriculture and human society where they all are able to use resources that each other cant, or provide benefit to each other. For example a huge amount of agriculture fertilizer comes from manure, and a huge amount of livestock feed comes from agricultural waste. Without livestock we now have to get fertilizer elsewhere, and all the byproducts that would become animal feed becomes waste.

In the grand scheme of things livestock produce an insignificant amount of ghg and that if all Americans stopped consuming beef, it would reduce the nations ghg emissions by ~2.5%, whereas transportation, power generation and construction contribute to the overwhelming amount of emissions (~80%).

If you want to look at reducing emissions from food, it is much easier to look at food waste, where ~40% of food in the US is wasted, and of that roughly 80% is produce like fruits, vegetables, tubers etc, meaning that even if there was a transformation to a purely vegan population, food waste would probably increase.

edit: I should reiterate that these are points in summary that are made in the video, not my personal opinion.

The author literally says the following in the article:

>Note: It is important to note here that we think that NFTs as a technology hold incredible promise to help more evenly distribute financial outcomes to community users, not just community organizers. We are in the early days of exploring what digital ownership actually means and it is far too bearish to universally decry the technology. Our concern is with the following types of NFT applications.

I think all sites served in the discover news feed on the google app are AMP pages.

I remember I recently did speed tests on the free wifi that they offer throughout Tokyo and it was always around 100-150Mbps u/d (I came across this clip when looking to verify[1]). It is kind of disheartening that they offer comparable internet speeds for free from old telephone booths that people in the west can pay over 50$/mo for even in large cities.

[1]: https://clips.twitch.tv/SourDreamyButterflyOSsloth

It may not be that people are afraid of custodians, more so that they have just lost faith in traditional institutions (banks, fed, politicians etc) to such a degree that has allowed things like cryptocurrencies and their transparent policy to be alluring. The success of cryptocurrencies is for the most part only possible because of the failures of these institutions.

I think the bib gourmand is the hidden star of the Michelin guide. It is just good food at a good price and it is much less known so you don't have to deal with the throngs that stars attract. It is more extensive too so there are always options.

Among other differences, Moderna dosages had ~3x more mRNA compared to Pfizer (100 v 30 micrograms), and their regime had longer periods between dosages. Apparently rationale for Pfizer doses was to minimize side effects because from their initial testing they did not find a significant increase in antibodies with a higher dosage [1].

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2027906

I think that is largely the case in some circumstances. Specifically in agriculture, fast food and meat packing the temporary foreign worker program is used to hire people who will work for less than what Canadians consider fair, either purely based on compensation, or a combination of compensation and qualification.

The value of unskilled labor is probably much lower than everyone wants to think it is in a global economy. There is no incentive to pay workers in developed countries "fair" wages when that labor can be done at a fraction of the cost in the developing world. Service sector jobs are probably hit by this because while they cant be outsourced, all the other employment going elsewhere just means they have leverage. Some places like Canada even import developing world labor to work these jobs because they cant find local employers for the wages they offer.

Most of the productivity gains have probably come from finance and technology, which would explain why those are some of the most lucrative career options now.

I think it is like what you said, most of his work seems to fundamentally revolve around how incomprehensibly complex systems in society have become, and the consequences of attempts to control many of those systems (either by necessity or arrogance). Most of this stories are just myths, strings interwoven in the much larger fabric of interlinking events meant to show how many of these discrete simplifications of reality interact and often clash with each other.

Similarly, you can get a reproduction of a Van Gogh which would functionally be the same painting hanging on the wall. One of the fundamental value propositions in art is the history, in that discrete examples of art are representations of cultural history and historical artifacts themselves. By purchasing a piece of history the buyer becomes part of the history through its provenance. That is the difference between owning an original and a copy that is attempted to be emulated by art nfts.

Whether or not it will be successful is a different question, though the most prominent ones will probably remain collectable to some degree purely because they represent the first iteration of a historical precedent (digital scarcity in art).

I feel like the audience has been decreasing for decades, and the current state of how news is reported is sort of an attempted pivot in reporting style meant to emulate social media which has been eating their lunch. Clickbait headlines and partisanship/ bias fuel a type of engagement that seems to be much more lucrative than what they did before. In terms of cashing in, I do believe it is something that they are doing to survive.

Trust can't really be gained as easily as it is lost, at this point I am skeptical there is a real (nice) solution available and the only path is for these institutions to continue to further dig themselves into their hole until there is no trust left to erode.

We have to remember that the media is like this because this is apparently what people want to consume. The old, traditional way is not one that will keep the bills paid. The incentives are all out of alignment with no obvious way to fix them.

I think the worst part of this is the authoritarian tendencies that are creeping in as people try to maintain a guise of being trustworthy as others begin to look for "trust" elsewhere.

I think a lot of it comes from the increased insecurity, both socially and economically, of the age. It seems like the general sentiment of the future isn't one of hope or optimism, but anxiety and pessimism instead.

It makes sense that in a period of increased insecurity the incentives to either hold onto that security or fight for increased security holds enough value that people are willing to give up freedoms whose importance has almost become esoteric among those who have never experienced what they are meant to protect us from.

This is probably why there has been little concern expressed about the slow erosion of freedoms in western societies, or the fact that many actively advocate for them to be eroded for short term securities.

With regards to modernity, I think specifically we are in a time where it is both much easier to not have a child, while also much more difficult to raise a child because of relative economic and social pressures of this period. My peer group mostly mirrors yours in that all but one are childless, with most not looking to have children at all.

There are many birth control options and views on abortion have changed significantly as well as education which has improved, which means much fewer people keep unplanned pregnancies. Simultaneously, working and middle classes in western developed nations have continuously been squeezed within our the lifetimes of people who should be settling down, 2 severe economic contractions combined with the pandemic on top of preexisting job, wage and other social insecurities makes the financial and social burden of having a child much more difficult to bear.

It implies that there is a relationship between the fed balance sheet and performance of the s&p500, suggesting that a large part of the economic growth in America since the 08 economic crisis has been because of things like quantitative easing and not actual growth.