65 karma · joined August 20, 2019
It’s unlikely that you will get good at something you don’t enjoy so I think the moment you can answer that question you should take the consequences.
Not enjoying it -> unlikely to get good at it -> unlikely to reap the benefits -> better skip it or work around it (you don’t NEED those platforms after all)
I could ask you for your device under the pretense of making a phone call and then secretly transfer your account to my device. I could then secretly read your chats from my device and no one would be aware of it - until you check the amount of active sessions in settings.
So from that point of view it would be legitimate to argue that I might want to get notified if one of my contacts transfers his account. I can then double check : “Did you just transfer your signal account to a new device or was that an attacker?”
That might only be interesting for high-risk users though and could impair the UX. Why not make it optional?
Isn't it absurd that so many people's primary hope to acquire wealth is by putting their money into something that was recommended to them on Twitter and that they don't even understand?
This is a zero-sum game, where the money you make, someone else loses. Crypto could be incredibly useful if it was simply a fully decentralised, cross-border, (anonymous) payment solution that is pegged to a basket of existing currencies. Wait, we already got that. It's called stable coins. But yeah, no 'get rich quick' in that one, so apparently a lot less interesting.
Who knows what amazing businesses could be created if the crypto preachers focused their energy and attention on actual value-producing entrepreneurship instead of FOMOing others into buying the random coin of the day.
We should be glad that the Chinese view our countries as safe and want to invest into them.
The real problem is that our local governments are unable to adjust the supply to the demand. THAT drives up prices and nothing else.
/edit: You could even make a law that foreigners can only invest into new construction which would make it impossible to invest without value creation for the local economy.
After looking through your suggestions, I think I better understand what I actually meant with 'intermediate-level learning resources'.
I suppose what I am looking for are videos where people walk you through some really advanced open-source applications and explain the application structure and design decisions they have made. That could be relevant for all sorts of tech stacks and combinations.
Basically a video after which you have a good starting ground to build your own application with a similar tech stack. These videos should ideally be made for open-source applications that follow many best practices for the given tech stack.
I think that would be extremely valuable. As of right now, you are stuck reading through random projects on GitHub and often times you don't even feel confident that the way they have approached the problem, is necessarily sane and a good way to go about it.
It would also be a lot more time-efficient if someone explains the application structure and design decisions to you than if you have to figure it out by yourself.
Regulation is always presented as a tool to 'protect the public' but usually just serves to protect the wealth of the leading players.
Anything that is regulated moves into a state of deadlock and now most industries and our society as a whole are in this state. Most don't dare to do anything entrepreneurial, because there are legal percussions waiting for almost any meaningful economic activity you could initiate.
A highly mobile free market capitalistic system is a threat to those in power. They don't want more bold entrepreneurs who could compete and potentially endanger them. They want people who do their jobs 9-5 and then go home and watch TV.
If we want to move out of this society-wide paralysis, we need grassroots political movements who systemically disassemble the regulatory walls that have been built over decades and centuries.
People need to wake up to the fact that regulation isn't meant to serve them but is intended to keep them at the bottom. Because when the current market leaders of an industry rose to power, there was no regulation yet, which made their success possible in the first place.
If you argue that this is how things should be, namely that industries should only be unregulated in the beginning and then become regulated once you have a few dominant market players, it creates a big problem: It means that we carry a long tail of highly inefficient industries with us, because regulation makes new competition so much harder in these 'older industries'.
I think we can see that today with industries like mobile carriers for example. Basically an oligopoly which dictates prices and creates huge shareholder profits year after year.
Each industry is a pillar of society and we need to break open these 'older industries' which were heavily regulated and have them catch up to the status quo through new competition. That means going head to head against a lot of people who have a lot of capital at their disposal to prevent that from happening.
I'm German and I've spent a fair share of time studying the history of my country. What we see happening in China in the last few years is an uncanny repetition of what we saw happening in Nazi Germany.
- A highly sensitive and egomaniac person being elected as 'leader for life' - An extreme military build-up which we haven't seen since WWII - Persecution of minorities - Extreme state surveillance and control of public opinion - Growing hostility towards any foreigners / belief in own superiority
The only reason we are not at war yet is because of the economic interdependence in a globalised world. And that's exactly why the Chinese new primary goal is 'increased economic self-sufficiency and independence'.
It's also remarkable how the 'rest of the world' makes the same mistake that the rest of Europe did in the 30s. Not recognising the threat for what it is until it was almost too late (it's another argument if Nazi Germany ever had a realistic chance at winning the war).
You can criticise the orange man for many things but at least he put China on the map for what it is: The biggest threat to a free and democratic world that has existed in a long time. It should also be clear by now that our capitalist elite does not care about these values at all. They will happily make business with anyone that they can get away with (without being scrutinised publicly too much).
The earlier we collectively realise that China under Winnie-the-Pooh is a serious threat, the earlier we can adjust our global policy to hopefully prevent another disaster in human history.
This also starts at the individual-level by voting with our wallets and not buying from any Western companies that so happily throw away our values to earn a few more bucks.