giansegato

Sounds eerily similar to what happened during the Enron saga. So many employees tricked into keeping all their pension savings into the stock. Quite a sad story.

It could be remunerated. Like: pay 100$ to have a human look at your case. You can appeal (and pay) up to 3 times. This would partially solve the scalability problem + provide partial disincentives for scammers and spammers. I would happily pay 100$ to recover my lost Google account. Of course this would in turn create the bad incentive of having Google not create good models. Ideally the law would require to cap prices somehow. Hard problem for sure.

I believe we're not saying opposing points of view. What I'm arguing for is moving corporate law on chain, mostly regulating relationships between shareholders, and keep everything else real world. In Europe for instance it's quite absurd how much bureaucracy you have the cope with to create operating entities in different countries within the same economic space. Everything else can stay the same - penal law in particular. It's a very fine line but I believe it can make sense in some instances

You don't need to hire lawyers to create the entity and coordinate internally. I've managed a multinational company: it's absolutely crazy the amount of complexity needed to coordinate between legislations, just because states can't efficiently talk with each other. It doesn't make any sense. It's a broken protocol. It's a fine line: within the org, on chain and no lawyers, only code and everyone must take care of code due diligence. Outside the org (ie. real world), you deal with lawyers as much as needed.

Because it's global. I don't need to reason with anyone anywhere, I don't need to hire lawyers, I don't need to make a global enterprise fit local regulations that are often conflicting. I'm not saying it's recommended, or even reasonable. I'm arguing that is not utter nonsense in some peculiar cases IMHO

I'm by no means an expert, but my intuition is that the relationship between on chain and real world should be regulated by real world courts. So, for instance, an on chain DAO hires a contractor, that then does insider trading on behalf of the DAO in the US: both the contractor and any real world activity in the US get targeted by US courts. It's like fining Google in the EU: you can't touch it in the US (it's as if it's on chain), but you can prevent it from doing business on EU soil. Or what happened with Facebook in the UK: the parliament summoned Zuck, and he just didn't show up. It's convoluted, but not far fetched imho.

That’s actually the point. You theoretically shouldn’t need a court. Everything is regulated by code, and if something goes wrong you have to own it. The code is public. You can vet it as much as you want. Proposals are voted proportional to code ownership. It looks controversial but not utterly nonsense to me.

100% this. That's why Projector is an interesting project, completely different from — say — VSCode or Replit.

Why? They can change the policy and ask for a confirmation, as every service out there is already doing.

My issue with it, as others have pointed out, is the lack of extensions ecosystem. It's painful how locked in we really are.

Hopefully this will increase competition in the space.

The credit card oligopoly is nothing but egregious.

They do. I know many artists that are now materially rich.

To be fair, an NFT is significantly more liquid.

I believe the OP was referring to the state of Israel, more in the sense that Israel wouldn't grant permission to sell a certain technology without being sure it cannot be wielded against its people.

I think it's a sound argument, even if speculative.

It's already happening. It's called Every, it's a writer collective that works exactly as you describe. Its founder was the first Substack employee, that resigned to become a writer full time.

I disagree. Podcasts and newsletter are still enough to keep you alive without platform intermediation.

Not coincidentally, they're the two only media that are delivered by open protocols.

I like Google, especially for the work they're doing in the Dev space (eg Tensorflow), and I love Apple. People do like companies, to certain extents.

Any idea how to try it out? Seems like the beta is fairly restrictive in giving access out.

Can't you go 5/5 days at the office, even if the meeting is online? I know many people who are doing this.

We befriend people with whom we spend time. As simple as that. Usually that happens because you have common interests, common foes, and/or common values, but those are a non-problem in college where everyone is facing the same issues, are roughly of the same age, and still have to develop a strong set of beliefs.

So, to get practical, I would suggest: just show up. Show up in class, show up at clubs, show up at extra-curricula activities. Do it long enough, be honestly engaged, and you'll be surrounded by friends you'll keep for all your life.

Never once I said it's the _only_ reason this happened (obviously). But between "it's the only reason" and "it has nothing to do with it" there's a lot of ground to cover, don't ya think?

I don't think it's far fetched to assert that the US and Germany in the 20s were extremely connected, financially speaking. How much this impacted the subsequent events can be debated.

But believing in no impact at all is just intellectually dishonest. It's a plain fact that '29 and investment dry-up in Europe caused incredible hardship on Germans (and their voting preferences in the '33 elections).

You know that the US had one of the largest stake in Germany's appalling debt before Hitler took power, right?

Why do you think it took 10 years for the Nazis to go to power? Between '23 and '33 one thing happened: 1929. And yes: it happened in New York.

The first plot is especially troubling. The last time the top 1% had as much as the bottom 90% was right on the eve of WWII.

Now, an exclusively economic interpretation of history is certainly wrong, but one cannot refrain from thinking that this much inequality won't lead to social unrest at best, flat out war at worst

While many others would prefer the other way around.

There's no inherently better model. Someone might prefer flexibility over ambition. Others ambition over flexibility.

To that I might add what the OP also mentions, that is how FB leveled the playing field when it comes to advertising. You can launch a new business competing with big corps with as little as a 100$ ad budget. It wouldn't have been possible 20 years ago. Without Facebook, many SME owners would be in serious trouble (see what happened with iOS 14).

I don't get it. What do these people would be doing with such data? Ok, they know that a certain Facebook account named John Doe is likely to be a male, between 40 and 50 years old, voted for Trump both in 16 and 20. So what? It's not like you can retarget said account through ads. I fail to see the purpose.

This is not entirely true (disclaimer: living in Germany, with a German-based business).

You can embed social media.

What you can't do is embed a social media post without disclosing in the cookie notice (that must be approved beforehand) what will happen to the user due to you doing it.

I don't think our average Carl will use a blog instead of Instagram to share his thoughts.

Yes, inferior products prevail from time to time, especially when those negative externalities you mention help consolidate a dominant position.

But social networks do not charge money. People are free to open as many blogs as they want. If they didn't when they were raging in the early 2000s there must a reason.

Reality is complex, especially human motivations. But to argue that blogs are a superior for the mainstream public to share themselves to an audience is a bit intellectually unfair.

Like... distribution?

Which means - whether we like it or no - that social media were and are superior products when it comes to this specific use case, otherwise people won't be using it.

It's not only a matter of "big numbers", but also of confirmation bias.

We're never paying any attention to irrelevant ads - we're ad blind to them. But the moment we see a very relevant ad to a recent conversation, that will inevitably pop up.

"See, this one ad is tied to this conversation I had yesterday: they must be listening", while in reality it's more like "See, this one ad out of 100s I've seen in the last day is tied to this one conversation out of 10s I had in the last day".