After reading these comments, it is clear that the ones who have their mind made up and are not open to debate are the warmists. The fact that merely asking questions incites such aggression suggests only one thing. They just don't know and are scared to admit it to themselves. This is the exact same behavior seen among religious cultists. They have not read all the evidence or most of it themselves, but follow the high priests unquestioningly because 1) It makes them feel better and morally superior and 2) The burden of proof is not on them. They can always evade and say "all the experts/high priests agree" or "read the IPCC" etc
We(tryfuel.com) are working on quantifying nutrition and personalizing it so people can eat healthy and understand how their bodies respond to diet. We have traction and very sticky product. We are raising our seed round.
The biggest problem we are having is finding angels who will not only lead this round but help in future rounds with introductions to VCs and serve as social proof. Any ideas on how to solve this?
What a stupid article. The author just proves that he has no clue what libertarianism is. His entire argument is that free and voluntary contribution spontaneously done by a large number of people under no coercion or threat of violence created something useful and wonderful. Ok genius. THAT is the essence of the market and the antithesis of the state (market does not need money to change hands, FYI any physical or psychological utility is enough). Non-aggression is the bedrock of libertarianism.
Thanks for proving the libertarian argument. Now stop writing clueless blogposts and go read a book.
Bad arguments. 1. Reason one is wrong as both increase in transaction volume and BTC price are both not only possible but can actually be positive externalities that reinforce each other. The increase in transactions could lead to an increase in price as more people adopt BTC. This has already proven to be the case in the early history of BTC.
2. See above. Once adoption increases, the incentive to convert to Fiat decreases thus making this problem gradually irrelevant once the market tips (the big if).
3. The need for regulations: Obviously total garbage. No need to refute.
4. Decentralization is better than monopoly central control. Legislators and Regulators are the only true monopolies. Market actors are not, so market based intermediaries will still have reasons to exist. This is not a necessary condition for widespread BTC adoption.
5. Full decentralization and "censorship resistance(aka freedom)" are important when there is a threat of property confiscation, which will become increasingly relevant when states become desperate for more revenue (already happening).
6. People don't find daily utility in fast decentralized transactions? That is ludicrous.
7. Trust. That's the whole point of btc protocol. Achieving trust between unknown parties (refer to Byzantine Generals Problem)
8. The section on blockchain is good and valid.
How about if we already have created a superhuman AI, that is tricking us humans into believing that it does not exist? And thus preventing us from building something else that might be more friendly to the human race and counter it's bad intentions? What if @sama has somehow been coopted by that AI's plan to stop further development of AI? :) On a more serious note, no one can predict human behavior to the degree of accuracy needed to call it deterministic. So, it is unlikely that we can predict a superhuman AI's behavior with any degree of accuracy. In other words, we just do not know what we are talking about. Does risk calculus make any sense in the domain of true uncertainty?
Love what you are doing. I wanted this to exist for so long, too bad did'nt have the time to take it on. I love the fact that you do not have any trace of sender information on the email screen so it is immune to screen capture. How about video screen capture? Have you thought of that?
The meals are made in our own kitchen. The nutrient needs are determined by taking into account your current height and weight, ideal body weight and your goal (for ex, gain 30 pounds of lean muscle vs lose 10 pounds) and your activity needs (active lifestyle, serious fitness enthusiast, athlete/bodybuilder etc). The food is prepared by certified chefs and under stringent quality standards, all ingredients are sourced from approved and certified purveyors. No integration with wearables at this time but possibly in the future if there is enough demand for it.
Can we define strong? What does well funded mean? How do achievements of students in public schools vs private schools in all the out performing nations compare? How do they compare between nations? And to the US? Were the students normalized before we compare per capita spending vs achievement by state? How? What factors were not considered? Without answering these and many other questions, most of this data is useless and pretty much exemplifies the pitfalls of aggregate statistics.
Simple solution to a complex problem. Just abolish public schools, let anyone and everyone compete to be able to become educators, open schools etc for profit, let the parents choose, select and vote with their money, let a million models be tested and a thousand flowers bloom. The best will rise to the top, (and probably be expensive), but every segment of the population will be catered to by price, taste and other preferences. More importantly, many more kids will have a decent shot at a good if not a great life versus becoming drones captive to the world's worst performing school system, (by per capita dollars spent).
Yes. Some are much farther from perfect than the others. Economic systems came from biological systems that came from matter and physical forces. Therefore astrology?
The impetus is on the claimant to show how their models are "better". From the link above, it sounds more like a religion or cult than as a science " ecological economics is defined by its focus on nature, justice, and time" . Economics is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive or ideological. What financial crises/trends did these ecological economists predict to claim that their methodology is better?
Nothing excites people like a false analogy. Looking to biology to model how economies work is like looking at stars and movements of heavenly bodies to see how stock prices change. I can find a thousand things common between them, but you know how accurate that science is.
Also, if some producers misunderstand consumer preferences, thinking that they would want a shiny stereo when in fact they wanted a better sounding stereo, those producers would be out of business or forced to eliminate their product line. That is why it is stupid to impose third party valuation of consumer preferences. If most people want shiny stereos that sound horrible, that is what should be produced (the moral argument), whether or not a few connoisseurs like it.
I think that the mass psychological explanations are not undervalued by austrians, just given their right prominence. We all know that errors in allocation of capital and pricing of assets happen all the time in the market. But, most errors are corrected as information manifests to reprice them and reallocate resources, from losing actors to winning actors and everyone learns a lesson. What the austrian business cycle explains is the systemic errors (Called the cluster of errors) that happen when central banks allow the errors to propagate and grow by effectively delaying and amplifying their propagation manipulation of interest rates and money supply.