birdsbirdsbirds

In other words, it's Fahrenheit that doesn't make sense because it goes from arbitrary -20 C to 40 C. Even the originally targeted alignment with human body temperature to 96 F doesn't match.

On the other hand, freezing and boiling water makes sense, because you know that you have to drive carefully when the temperature is below 0 C.

My guess is that they make sure that you don't doubt your purchase. You could send it back if a competitor gets into your head. Additionally, if you don't doubt, you become loyal to the brand and you will recommend it in your network.

What if it's not about keeping individual humans comfortable with nice experiences but about growing the amount of awareness? We think of humans as a resource problem but they are also the source of innovation and creativity. Will resources be limited if there is the chance to grow the number of aware beings to new heights with the potential to reach new levels of civilization?

Endless hedonism is boring until there is competition. DenisM mentions status in his comment. Status will demand Versailles bigger than can be passed at light speed during a life, just to impress. There will be galaxies full of combat drones, just to keep the balance in fighting power.

Why should there be a limit? If you can command robots to build anything you can ever imagine, who doesn't want his own Versailles - with impressive towers like the Burj Khalifa? Who doesn't want to fly their jet or space rocket just for fun to the moon and back?

And humans will be humans. There will be new games, like drone wars on distant planets, where any production capacity and energy will be used. And since everything is very efficient, there will be no food left for birds or even poor humans.

They can choose for a year or two, but they will lose on scale. Apple can pull off their own processor because they are big enough. If companies don't sell in China, only Chinese companies are big enough to have fancy new components and production processes.

With comments, they could have become facebook. They still can become facebook by offering comments, letting their readers create profiles and expand from there.

Newspapers aren't swimming in money because they don't go all in on online content. Moderating comments, choosing information for their readers, that's their core competence. Writing articles or printing is secondary.

How do you continue once you are big enough to be a threat to Google?

From the article:

> they [the central banks] can expand the money supply to keep the system propped up.

They have to expand money supply to keep the value of the currencies stable as long as most money is not spent. The economy depends not on the supply of money but on the stability of the money.

By which force do central banks have to keep increasing the money supply once people start spending? There is no reason to do so and thus no reason for fiat currencies to collapse.

It's more likely that they increase interest rates when people start spending again, and thus reduce supply and as a consequence, keep the value of money stable.

>what looks to be one

If it quacks like a duck, is it already a duck?

What is bitcoin's value anchor? What happens if all the people who are afraid of regular currency collapses have spent their money on bitcoin? Who will provide the liquidity to drive the demand that keeps the value high?

When the covid crisis is over and people want to invest their bitcoins into new opportunities, won't we see a huge crash because there is no money available for all the bitcoins that are supposed to be liquidated?

Give money to brilliant scientists with no strings attached.

Let scientists among themselves figure out who is brilliant. If the system gets corrupted, a second group of scientists will emerge who claim to be the real deal. Let them battle it out and choose the smarter group for further funding.

In other words, do it the way it was done before the influx of the administrative overhead.

By which means are the people paid who organize Tether? If they hand out tether effectively for nothing, who is paying for the infrastructure? If there is no payment, why would one not expect that they intend to run away with those $30 billion one day?

Additionally, if that bank goes bankrupt, the money is not secured.

What's the leverage?

Naively I would assume that the worst would be that when such a small investor sells his shares then everybody else has an opportunity to make a cheap offer.