qyv

Scarcity itself does not imply value, something can be scarce but if no one wants it it still has no value. So the question needs to be what really drives the value of something like Bitcoin?

In my opinion, I think that Bitcoin derives its value from the idea that one day it will become a widely used currency that can be exchanged universally for real-world goods and services. This has what has driven it to become a speculation tool; because at the end of the day when Bitcoin finally becomes a "universal" currency, everyone wants to be left holding a lot of it. But what if Bitcoin never becomes a currency, what happens to it's value then?

Who is to say what to legitimate use and what is misuse of a creation if not the creator?

> But those heuristics and hardcoded biases were developed through brute force optimization over the course of billions of years, a massive amount of energy input and many organisms being devoured.

This is true in the context of the universe as a whole, not by the organism itself.

"I was only following orders."

Edit to add: If you are being asked to perform illegal or unethical acts as part of your employment, then perhaps termination is an ideal course of action? Unless of course your personal enrichment outweighs legalities or ethics in your worldview?

> However, as you go further and further out from our galaxy the metric expansion of spacetime begins to dominate the relative motion of all bodies, leading to observing progressively redder and redder light curves. A galaxy billions of light years away is perceived to be moving away from our reference frame at a significant percentage of the speed of light!

Is this not because there is simply more space between things that are farther away and therefore more expanding space? So, more space = more magnitude of expansion?

Animals have killed other animals for food since the dawn of life. You can't get more"natural" than that. Eating meat is hardly a human invention.

I know for a fact that McDonald's beef burgers, at least in North America, have a single ingredient: beef. They go directly from source grind to patty maker to freezer, nothing is added.

This can actually vary depending on where you are in the world. There are places, like Canada, where the term engineer has a specific definition under the law, and it includes things such as professional ethics and liability.

You are correct. And if two crews in 5 months had the same issue either identifying or dealing with the same problem, then perhaps there is an design or training problem error here.

What if we all share the same consciousness, but are simply unable to comprehend it? To me the idea that all concious entities are in fact shared is comforting, because it implies that what we do with our lives will always be remembered. Even after our lives end, our singular consciousness, with all of our memories, thoughts and feelings, remains.

The question is actually "at what cost?" Sure, all things being equal thinner/lighter is great. BUT, what trade off's are being made in the name of thinness? If you need to sacrifice 50% expected lifetime to make something 0.5mm thinner, is that a good trade off?

IMO monkey-patching built-in classes is idiomatic Ruby!

Edit to add: Actually, now that I think about it, using method_missing would have been even better!

Ruby the Ruby way:

  module FizzBuzz
    def to_fb
      s = ''
      s << (self % 3 == 0 ? 'Fizz' : '')
      s << (self % 5 == 0 ? 'Buzz' : '')
      s << self.to_s if s.empty?
      return s
    end
  end

  Integer.include(FizzBuzz)

  1.upto(100) { |i| puts i.to_fb }