tuesdayrain
tuesdayrain on Hacker News
>I can’t imagine what’s going on in his mind right now.
Massive amounts of Selegiline, probably.
>Even gold, at least I can wear it and display my wealth. You can’t even display your crypto wealth like that
I'd feel much safer displaying large sums of wealth online by posting a wallet than by wearing luxury goods in public.
Your mistake is valuing cryptocurrency purely as a currency. In reality BTC and other cryptos have combined properties of currencies, commodities, securities, as well as unique elements that can't be found elsewhere. Crypto is its own asset class and trying to value it using old models of other assets is bound to fail.
>Education and stock market are not analogous
Why not? A company is just an aggregate of people working towards a shared mission. Not unlike a society.
This is a fallacy, similar to thinking that a portfolio should be invested into the worst performing stocks because "they have the most room to improve".
There is a certain brand of person who is obsessed with redistributing resources from the most productive to the least productive. They don't see how allocating the best teachers in the world to students who are disabled or borderline disabled is not beneficial to society.
>But everyone notices when every aspect of their society is led by people of one race.
I didn't go to China and become resentful when I noticed their leadership was Chinese. But I did immigrate to America, then eventually become resentful when I noticed white people & asians were discriminated against out of some twisted sense of fairness.
>Can someone explain this in logical, non-political, terms.
Probably not, because it's ultimately a political phenomenon. In left-leaning circles it's popular to deny that there can be significant statistical differences between demographics for any reason other than discrimination. Based on that logic they view all unequal gender ratios as problems that need to be solved.
Good. The last thing the world needs is discord users getting rich off crypto.
>The Crypto-USDT pairs will quickly go no-bid
History has shown that this does not happen in crypto. Even for coins like Bitconnect and Confido that plainly turned out to be scams, there were still buyers long after the news was revealed. People like to bet on dead cat bounces, or some kind of news after the fact that redeems the coin.
>I’ve been shorting a few bitcoin-related public companies on the theory that in a run on Tether they will have to liquidate large bitcoin holdings
I doubt a run on tether would even cause a 50% drop in BTC price. Hope your account doesn't blow up when Bitcoin inevitably reaches 1 million per coin ;)
>Consider cryptocurrency to be the newest version of Beanie Babies, and act accordingly.
I find it hilarious that people can seriously equate a 2.6 trillion dollar industry with Beanie Babies. Beanie Babies did not allow for the creation of a decentralized financial network.
>Bitcoin is only fuelled by people's poor understanding of what money is.
Citation needed. I majored in economics and BTC is a huge percentage of my portfolio.
>1) no benefit in the meantime for the holder (such as a dividend
There is no fundamental difference between an asset paying dividends or simply appreciating in value. At the end of the day all an investor cares about is ROI. Holding BTC's lack of dividends against it while it's gained 371% in the past year strikes me as odd.
>First, police disproportionately arrest people of color, especially Black people.
That's similar to saying that police disproportionately arrest men relative to women, therefore they must be sexist.
I've taken all my other vaccines. But because I don't want to take one vaccine with unknown long term side effects for a disease that I've already had, I'm suddenly an antivaxxer? I disagree.
Banning mandates that restrict freedom is ultimately consistent with valuing freedom. Calling that in itself anti-freedom is the same logic as "you aren't truly tolerant unless you accept my intolerance".
Your phrasing makes it sound like people should be grateful that their generous employers pay them so much. Employers don't do that because they're nice, they do it because tech workers generate enough value to justify paying large sums. Not paying them accordingly will result in them getting poached by another company.
It's disingenuous to pretend like "black lives matter" is merely a phrase that any decent person should agree to without question. BLM is a political group with a radical left-leaning agenda that encompasses much more than just "don't kill black people randomly" as you suggest. Discussing these things in the workplace inevitably leads to the accusation that if you don't support BLM, you must not think black lives matter. It's a very cheap tactic, akin to saying that you're not a patriot if you don't support the PATRIOT act.
Nitpicking based on your definition of "investment" isn't really a dig at Bitcoin. I would argue that even fiat currencies are often used as investments to hedge against various types of risks. Bitcoin is not "supposed" to be anything, it's just a technology that has different uses for different people. Something that outperforms a majority of investments is certainly an investment to anyone who isn't gatekeeping.
Fair distribution is not only completely subjective, but also meaningless. Given enough time, any valuable asset's distribution will be heavily concentrated in the hands of the rich.
> The amount of people making a profit from it is less than 5%
I find it amusing how casually you just made up a statistic and used it as justification to ban something. Here's an actual statistic: 100% of people who held Bitcoin for longer than 4 years are up on their investment.
edit: Lots of downvotes for an easily verifiable fact. Anyone can look at the BTC chart and see that there is no 4 year span where the price ends up lower than it was at the start.
Not sure what kind of work you do but whenever I hear frontend devs don't use a framework/view library I have a difficult time taking them seriously. More often than not that means they're using some mess of a pseudo-framework that they created themselves.
>Big Corps, much like liquid flowing downhill, tend to flow towards whatever makes them the most money for the least effort
People say this a lot but it's not the case when the CEO is an ideologue. A few weeks ago I was at a meeting where our CEO said customers were unhappy about the company's choice to insert politicized messages into its products. He said that they could potentially lose as much as 50% of their revenue because of it. And he still felt that he was doing the right thing.
I disagree with the logic that Twitter ToS choosing to focus on combating a specific type of abuse is indicative of the definition of "racism". It does not mention that word anywhere.
Yes it is an unfortunately common definition among the groups you mentioned, but I still believe those people to be a minority relative to the population.
The dictionary.com definition for racism says nothing about power being a requirement:
A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
He implied this definition was the consensus, when it's an alternate definition used mainly by anti-white activists.
>"racism = power + prejudice", all whites have institutional power, etc)
Oh please. The attempt to redefine "racism" to exclude white people is itself hilariously racist. It's propaganda that tries to influence people through deceptive language. If the people behind that had honest intentions they would have created a new word to describe the phenomenon rather than try to redefine existing words.