marta_morena_91

> Google and other big tech companies use these criteria to filter people out at the hiring stage, but the vast majority of work has nothing to do with any of this stuff.

Yes, because at Google & Co. you actually NEED this stuff. I am not sure there is a day going by where being strong in math and computer science isn't immensely helpful for my job.

The problem is: All other companies immitate Google, not only through interviews, but also by copying their "scalability" which is completely crazy. For instance relational databases are perfectly fine for like 99% of companies. Single servers would probably work well for another 90% of companies. Monoliths instead of micro services would work well for 90% of companies... It's crazy.

But it's really not. Bitcoin isn't anything special. If there were any real-world use cases for it (which there don't seem to be), this would have been done long ago or would have been done organically. As it stands, interest in bitcoin was largely null, until people realized that it's a great investment opportunity where everybody can get rich (tulips, anyone?)... The rest is history. Now alt coins were popping up like mushrooms because you can make even more money when you own the coin and can keep half the stock or more for yourself.

1. There is no use case for crypto currencies, except fraud and crime.

1. There may be use cases for centralized ledgers, however it seems like people are desperately trying to "find" use cases just the same way they are trying to find machine learning use cases. It's a marketing hype.

If crypto currencies were actually "required" to solve any major use case, the implementation would follow easily from the requirements. The things its being used for right now are essentially crying out for crypto currencies and it doesn't take a genius to derive a crypt currency implementation for those requirements. However I would argue that 99% of these "use cases" are made up and would work as well or even better on a centralized architecture.