intended

Ok, so you are saying this is business as usual, and the theft is exactly what one should expect, as with any other store of value.

I find something odd about this, because it seems to contradict some of what I understand of the arguments for bitcoin.

However, there is merit to your point, and if something is working as intended, then nothing was attacked in the first place.

The topic is bitcoin being hacked and stolen. I do not think this outcome was the intended outcome for users?

Perhaps I am missing your argument.

It really is hard, because time isn’t addressed in the idea.

It is an evolutionary process, with incentives are high enough for both sides to keep finding solutions.

All systems can be bent, broken, or subverted.

That would be evidence that places where there are universities are places where international students would stay though.

It seems housing has become a global asset class, and that squeezes out local purchasers.

The usual argument is that more housing would solve this problem, which is like saying less carbon would solve global warming.

The situation in American academia is something long mirrored in colleges in other countries.

You went to college because it was the only way to get a job that paid well.

When other vocations stopped having the ability to ensure people could enjoy social mobility, people focused on the only pathways left.

I wouldn’t know if the whole thing was AI or not at a glance.

Individual responsibility != behavior at scale.

I mean, If what I said affected your world view to the point that you have to respond the way you did, I am not sure what can be said to make it better for you.

This is the field of my work, so I know with certainty the point I am making.

My response to the situation was to learn and understand it so that it can be made better for normal people. So that they have an actual fair chance.

I assume you have the ability to acknowledge the difference between a single individual’s choice at one moment, and the choices of that individual at different times of the day.

Firms don’t bet on a single human making a reasonable choice. The bet that given enough humans, enough will be in the right circumstances to make the choices that benefit the firm.

Even individual agency shifts at different times, which is why food ads play at specific time slots.

No one is an island.

On this topic? I would have to check. R/badeconomics ? R1 means that its impenetrable to average pontification. The Fed data is neutral.

Using CATO as a neutral source though, is sketch no matter what.

Personal responsibility when sitting in front of a box of candy in your own house and choosing to eat it or not is a reasonable expectation.

Personally responsibility, when averaged out to billions of people, being given choices based on the work of scientists, engineers and researchers, with no barrier to leverage your neurology and data?

I have never perfectly understood how we reconcile what happens at scale, where its trillions of choices every minute, over the user base the size of several countries with individual responsibility.

The best answer I have is that it should be a fair fight / Fair choice. There should be a reasonable expectation of what the average outcome in a given situation is, and the players should have equal ability to engage in that transaction.

Your experience being humanizing is one experience, the average experience being dehumanizing is still entirely possible.

We are getting hammered by a massive increase in generation of content, and no change in our ability to consume content.

Understanding is a combination of consumption and reflection. There is simply not enough time to do so. This is driving a push towards content that is so simple to consume that it takes no effort.

A surplus of labor, by definition, reduces the value of labor. Most people are labor, so this means their earning potential is reduced, which means their social mobility, ability to take care of themselves, is reduced.

When you consider that this conversation assumes we are talking about the US and not the rest of the world? It is sobering.

The AI bet hinges entirely on the new types of work that arise from it.