justinalanbass

This paper might argue that the risk/reward ratio is lower than other similarly risky investments, which would substantiate the article's argument that landlords are greedy and generally bad. But good point, the abstraction of risk is something like a veil used to make landlords and investors sleep at night.

Actually... According to the research source landlords do charge more due to increased risk: "Because landlords operating in poor communities face more risks, they hedge their position by raising rents on all tenants."

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701697

I have attempted to duplicate this index fund manually by purchasing the top 25 cryptocurrencies (market-cap weighted) over the past year or so. I'll say that it was hardly worth the enormous work involved, and these index funds cannot come soon enough to non-accredited investors. In some cases it's not possible to do perfectly alone: NEO has a minimum unit of 1 coin, and so if you wanted it to not be overweighted, you'd need to have a total portfolio that is an integer multiple of $6700 right now.

However, I would not buy this fund from Coinbase since they are not a neutral player, and the market is not regulated yet. There are still great advantages in owning coins yourself - I expect that, as an average investor, I will certainly be prone to manipulation in some way. Alas, the greatest gains are probably long-since gone. No risk, no reward.

Every day we live for those things and face a small chance that some powerful government or entity will capture and torture us or our loved ones indefinitely, for scientific reasons, or perhaps for no reason at all. Escaping life is one solution, but bracing against fear and leaning onto hope seem like more appealing choices to me. Pessimism is a valid argument against Cryonics, but since it's as unfalsifiable as optimism, I'll gladly take the choice that makes me happier. Maybe that is a priveleged and rare choice these days, but all I can say is I hope you find optimism and hope someday in this life, regardless of the viability of some inconsequential technology.

Diversity of thought, novelty. In the same way it never gets old to watch a child experience "I am your father!" for the first time, I'm sure humans of the future will enjoy entertaining humans of the past.

I'm curious what other arguments you have, personally. I'm not sure you've expressed it fully yet.

You could do both: organ donation is compatible with brain preservation.

Perhaps some are motivated by narcissism, but I'd like to think my fellow cryonicists are motivated by hope, and a belief that the future will be a warm and welcoming place. If the future is narcissistic, I wouldn't want to be revived anyways.

I can't speak for everyone, but my interest in Cryonics stems from a love of life, not a fear of death. Preservation will not solve grief, death, or displacement in time. Nor does it necessitate immortality - I want to die, eventually, but if there is a chance at more life, I'll take it. People have spent more on experimental cancer treatments with similar uncertainty and discomfort, so I suppose it's similar to that.

I would gladly revive a non famous person from the 18th century - diversity in thought doesn't seem to be a mess to me. And any future that would revive me would necessarily agree - I'm just betting there are enough people like me when resurrection is possible. And if everyone is like you, I'd gladly opt to be dissected and studied instead.

Being an avid cryonicist, I have attempted to express these myths to a wide variety of people. The very few and open-minded folks that will move past utter dismissal usually have a deep and visceral illogical fear of death - or a deep and visceral religious belief in the afterlife. These "Cryonics Myths Debunked" tend to only further convince those who are likely to choose Cryonics anyways.

There must be a better way to convince the masses, but so far no billionaire or government has stepped forward with a serious effort here, and I doubt such a thing will occur in our lifetimes.

My point is, other avid cryonicists should study serious and effective approaches, and abandon the "rational" one. But hey, making it up high on the hacker-news top-10 is a good start.

In theory, RandoCoin will necessarily develop a black market based on traits other than the random generation in the long-run. If random generation were used, anyone could theoretically wait some period of time to buy at a low price, and wait more to sell at a high price for a gain, which is clearly unsustainable. The black market would include those who bought RandoCoin at, say, 4 standard-deviations below the mean (all purchases would only be made at the lowest price possible over a year-long window).

This is fairly obvious, and the "experiment" couldn't hope to turn up anything useful, so my main guess is this is nothing more than a cleverly-disguised pyramid scheme or scam. I would recommend not purchasing any, even for novelty, in order to discourage this nonsense. This could have easily just been a hypothetical post and would have been more interesting than a crappy FAQ.

The Green 500 is more than a concern for global warming. It is also a measure of scalability due to heat dissipation and power supply concerns. The difficulty of achieving a human-brain sized supercomputer will be more about energy efficiency than actual computational ability.