monob

Ten years?

People have been saying that since before Clinton got in office.

Catastrophic inflation from government spending has been just around the corner for 40 years now. The 1970s were an odd time for many reasons, and they won't repeat again. But for some reason too many people base their predictions of the future from what happened between 1974 to 1984.

Fixed point isn't any better than floating point.

If anything errors in floating point numbers are graceful and give you a lot of leeway before they become catastrophic. Fixed point works until you hit 2(n-1) bits then probably breaks unexpectedly. Where n is the last exponent you have seen in business.

That's a very naive way of looking at the world.

Economics is only allowed a free reign so long as it meets the goals of those currently in power in a given political unit.

Try selling nuclear technology to Iran if you don't think that it applies to the US as much as to China.

Doing it strategically to prevent a nuclear war 30 years down the line is the lesser of two evils.

You have use value and exchange value.

Exchange value is most often price, but it is in reality the vector of the equivalent amount of goods and services you will receive for a unit of some good or service.

The point of money is that it collapses all exchange values to two vectors, one for selling to money, one for buying with money.

The downside of money is that it hides many very obvious relationships. In a topical case, that the cost of video cards has essentially stayed constant when expressed as etherium units.

tl;dr: money lets you calculate prices as n, exchange values needs n^2.

Because it destroys the local industry which you will need at some point.

As simple example: the British supported the German chemicals industry prior to WWI.

At the start of WWI, the money the British spent had been turned into German chemical expertise. This lead to the development of the Haber process, poison gas, and generally making Germany a powerhouse in chemicals in the same way Britain was in mechanical manufacturing.

If a tariff had been put in place on German imports to Britain the German chemical industry would have been much smaller, with much less capability and WWI would have finished in 6 months because Germany would have run out of nitric acid for their explosives.

It's first mover advantage in the same way surviving is a first mover advantage. You're fine if you're profitable, but with constant improvements that won't be the case for long, unless you too start moving to new technology.

If no one cares about wealth I'm sure the wealthy won't mind a 100% wealth tax then.

After all it's only numbers in a bank account.

>This is the very same narrative that vim users proclaim

Sounds like a solid reason why makefiles are great to me then.

Vim is so good it finally is letting emacs-OS have a real editor.

First the mempool clears, second >30% of top value.

This is the 4th time this has happened.

Why is anyone surprised? The only shocking thing about this bubble is that it took 3 years.

A good predictor if the latest bubble has burst is if the suicide hotline number is a sticky on the bitcoin subreddit.

Currently it isn't there so we have a while yet.

>The citation that it works is in the article.

What worked in the article?

It only says the battery supplied less than 2% of the lost power for about 5 seconds before regular power generators took over.

>It's important to note it is something special. The battery works, and it works better than the existing solutions.

[[Citation needed.]]

How much was the shortfall?

How long could the battery have sustained the shortfall?

How much damage would there have been at the usual response time?

How what is the ROI without government subsidy to building huge battery storage?

Best by food availability, shelter, labor.

Given that even in good years a large portion of the population was malnourished in whatever time period you want to pick before the middle of the 20th century, the rich were always better off than the poor and rich families were better than poor ones.