How are files stored ultimately? Something like Arweave or Filecoin?
5,628 karma · joined March 15, 2009
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/norswap; my proof: https://keybase.io/norswap/sigs/7MjYNKBzV3Q0iTnTn7335vArDZwY_nZ0OkRLeXz1JII ]
So the risk is limited as long as the loans can be liquidated in time in case of a price crash.
The rates are determined the ratio of all stablecoin liquidity provided vs the amount actually borrowed. Liquidity providers can remove liquidity at any time, and so the smaller the remaining liquidity buffer gets, the higher the fees gets.
Most of the rates are dynamic: i.e. the interest rate on your existing loan can increase drastically if there is a liquidity crunch. In practice your interest is charged as though it was extra borrowing and so lowers your liquidiation threshold.
On the flip side, the dynamic rate also means that as the liquidity gets thinner, the interest rate paid to liquidity provider gets higher, meaning it incentivizes liquidity deposits when they are most needed.
No you've got that backwards. I wrote "conservatism thinks it's easier to break things than to improve them". If you think a change is more likely to break things than to have a positive impact, you don't do the change. Hence, conservatism.
As for the rest, I'm not especially keen on debating or even discussing open relationships. I'll humor you for a sec, but won't reply further:
Of course everyone says it requires maturity, because it does. It's so obvious, I agree it's not a very interesting point to make, but I think the point is to acknowledge that open relationships often fail, and are not for everyone.
> That is interesting because I perceive this as fishing for confirmation for personal choices.
Man I was making an example in answer to a question lmao.
> But where do you think you need maturity? I assume it means to accept compromises? Where is that needed in such a relationship?
Jealousy is a naturally-occuring feeling. And it's quite natural to have some insecurities too. The maturity part is the ability to acknowledge them (first and foremost, to yourself), and to be open and talk about them, in a very open way, i.e. not loaded with assumptions and what the other person thinks/wants/feels.
But I'm not trying to explain why you (or anybody else in particular) committed to a single person romantically. I'm trying to explain why it's popular in general.
Imagine we could reset social norms around monogamy. Maybe you would still be monogamous for other reasons. I suspect many monogamous people, without the normative baggage, would go polygamous -- i.e. they don't consider monogamy to be intrinsically superior/good the way you do. I also suspect that over time the norm towards monogamy would creep back in for purely pragmatic reasons.
(Agreement or disagreement on open relationships being immaterial to open-mindedness. The open-minded attitude is to consider what might make a stance true. Instead, to preserve your priors on open relationships, you're forced to assume a bunch of things, such that I am lying, and that I am unhappy, etc...)
Your comment about the social zeitgiest is interesting. Where I live (in western Europe) open relationships are quite unpopular (despite being more popular than they've ever been). I actually expect the same to be true in the US, outside of some affluent circles (if we're talking about in-the-flesh relationships).
How would you define conservatism?
(I don't consider my definition as negative btw. I have a conservative mindset on quite a few things where I think improvement is hard, or we're stuck in a local optimum and the cost of getting out would be currently unbearable.)
If you are open-minded, you're open to considering that the normal ways things are done might not be the best way -- which it is not along all axes, but it does incur some advantages for reasons that must remain unspoken for the advantages to be incurred.
This has two potentially bad consequences: (1) you might come to miss the advantages provided, and (2) you might erode the effectiveness of the deceitful mechanism.
An easy example is open relationships. They're difficult to navigate and often end in drama. (Personal opinion: they're awesome but require a ton of emotional maturity, and some time, to make work.) The lie here is that romantic commitment is a sacred value -- in reality it's a way to bind yourself to avoid the instability and hurt that can easily result from open relationships.
If you're not able to handle open relationships, your open-mindedness will have hurt you. And if you want to return to monogamy, your lack of belief in romantic commitment might be an impediment too.
People get burned by their open-mindedness a few times, or see examples of people getting burned around them, and they shut that part down.
It's the essence of conservatism: a belief that it's easier to break something that works than to improve things. (Forget politics, you can just think about this at the personal level.)
So if there are N deposits then later N withdrawals, the only thing you know is that each withdrawal matches one of the deposits, but not which one.
As for privacy improvements:
- If you deposit then immediately withdraw, observers might suspect that you instantly withdrew your deposit.
- You need ETH for the withdrawal transaction, which has to come from somewhere (making it potentially traceable). With their relayers you can withdraw to an empty account while hiding the origin of the transaction fee.
I don't think the speculative bubble around JPG makes much sense.
An interesting thought I had though, is that the traditional art market makes ""no sense"" either.
People keep insisting it's so different because you pay for something tangible that can't be easily copied. In reality, you could buy a copy of a masterpiece that would be indistinguishable to everybody except a handful of experts, for many order of magnitudes less money than the original. The world's most expensive paintings sell for hundreds of millions. The best Mona Lisa replica are auctioned (!) for hundreds of thousands, and you can buy "good enough" canvas replica for a few hundred dollars.
The reason people buy art NFTs are the same that people buy expensive real world art: (1) patronize the artist, (2) tax evasion, (3) status symbol, (4) price speculation
NFTs just takes the logic to its paroxism / logic conclusion.
Note that is specifically about "art NFTs". NFTs is a much broader category that has useful uses (e.g. the aforementionned domain name).
Now they claim to be backed by cash and cash equivalents, namely a lot of "commercial paper" (short term debt obligations), which is widely believed to be in Chinese markets.
For some reason though, they won't reveal exactly what it is they hold. It could be that they think the market will not react kindly to the kind of assets they hold, or that they entered some kind of weird agreement no to reveal them.
I highly doubt they're not backed by assets whose face value adds up to the total UST distribution, because multiple auditors have said they were fully backed. But it is possibly that some of these assets are junk that won't (or have a high risk not to) redeem at face value.
Even in very bad scenarios, UST could fall to 0.8$ if 20% of Tether's asset default (and they burned through profits). Problematic but not quite such as a risk as it going to zero, which is why people still hold it.
God forbid individuals get in on the tax dodging action!
Also, businesses dodge taxes with crypto? Not impossible, but never heard of that.
He was talking about "sensory keys" but the other person thought it was "requestor's keys"? That can't be it - because it's implied the other person heard the term "sensory".
Can someone explain?
(I must refrain from being very snarky and say that maybe the author is not very good at making points. Oops.)
100g is half a cup. It's about 5 large strawberries. See https://findanyanswer.com/how-many-grams-are-3-strawberries for more numbers.
I buy strawberries in 500g boxes, and let me tell 1/5 isn't all that filling (definitely less than a Snickers bar).
In fact, arguably PoW is worse, because it has economies of scale that PoS does not have, so the rich truly do have an edge in PoW.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
So this solves any problem that you can formally specify with the same complexity as the best algorithm?
This sounds too good to be true, what's the catch?
One way you can do that is by putting evolutive selection pressure on the micro-organisms. For instance, submit a colony of bacteria to something they are vulnerable to. Stop when 90% of the colony is dead. Cultivate the colony back to a full size, then repeat the protocol until you get bacteria that are fully resistant.
A neat trick to reason about those cases is to use odds. The prior odds for the first ball being blue vs red is 1:1. The odds for the first ball being blue vs red, given the second ball is blue is 1:2. We can just multiple the odds to get (1*1):(1*2) = 1:2 as the posterior odds.
This doesn't seem impressive because the prior is 1:1, but using this method you can easily calculate the odds in the scenario where there are 4 red and 2 blue balls. The prior odds is 2:4=1:2, the conditional odds is (1/5):(2/5)=1:2, 1:2 * 1:2 = 1:4, i.e. 1/5 chance that the first ball was blue.