ravingraven

If by "common" user you mean the desktop user, not much. But this is a huge deal for embedded devices like industrial control and communication equipment, as their devs will be able to use the latest mainline kernel if they need real-time scheduling.

>But it's been that way forever in tech companies: SWE make enormous amounts of money and can control their work + environment a lot.

This has certainly not been true since for ever and is only partially now. Only a small minority of developers make enormous amounts of money and there are plenty of shitty companies that do not give you any control whatsoever.

That being said, I do not disagree that part of it is due to the boom-bust cycle of markets, but yeah, managers "coordinate" in a sense that there is a zeitgeist and a common understanding of what the atmosphere is.

They hired people when it was beneficial (note that I am not using the word "profitable" here) for them to do so and now they are firing because that is the new beneficial thing. Keep in mind that managers do not pay you out of their pocket.

A pure market-driven downsizing wave usually touches the C-level too.

For many companies this is counter-intuitive but true. Companies (just like people) are not fully rational economic actors. A lot of the decision-making in companies revolves around power-plays and revenge. Managers fire people they don't like or they feel they do not have leverage over all the time. In a sufficiently large team/company, it is trivial to portray a good performer as a bad one and vice versa. Managers (including CEOs) are just as sexist/racist as anyone and do promote based on biases and personal feelings.

Managment greatly enjoys the feeling of power they have over people and I don't think it is absurd to say that they are fed up with the current dynamic that takes part of this away from them and are firing people just to create an atmosphere of fear.

So, you don't care about the movies you watch or the music you hear?

No, you can't. Netflix, Youtube etc. (arguably the largest players in the digital properties game right now) have demonstrably failed to do so.

Please refer back to my original comment about people hearing NFTs and for some reason which I fail to understand jump to "physical property". NFTs do not work for physical property but they do for digital.

Enforcement of digital rights is actually easier via NFTs than contracts/client apps etc. because NFTs mathematically can prove ownership (courts just have not caught up yet).

Digital ownership is enforced by laws and nothing else. There is no amount of code that can technically prevent me from copying any data that lands on my system.

>Tokens signed by an app-trusted key solve the problem with almost zero resource cost.

This ensures safety against access and not against copying. Of course I can not copy assets I don't have access to but the same is true for NFTs.

>...but ownership of property requires physical and/or legal protections, which they do not.

This is not true for digital property. Digital property is just as "made up" as the NFT that proves its ownership. People hear "NFT" and for some inexplicable reason jump to physical art.

If the network believes, by whatever consensus methods for proof of ownership that are employed by this network, that you own one coin then those same methods can be used so that the network can believe that you own a certain digital asset. That ownership is just as real as the ownership of a coin.

What people get confused with is the concept of copying or using (both are actually the same problem) this asset. But, this is not an NFT problem, it is a digital problem. All digital assets have this problem, if you give me the asset I can copy and use it without your consent.

Example: I can trivially copy the entire Netflix catalogue on my hard-drive. Since those bits land on my system to be shown on a screen they can just as easily land on my HD as an mp4 file. Are we on any disagreement that Netflix owns those shows? No. But once made available to me, I can use them however I want. Ownership and "use" are to unrelated things when it comes to digital.

I was short on Tether for years. Had to give up my position because “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

>I think the core problem is huge and extremely traditional management.

Not saying that this is not a problem, but bulky management is a constant for DB, even during the years where it was considered world-class. I think it is the budget cuts and the resulting lack of infrastructure.

Nonesense. The Lira has been massively losing value since 2008 while Bitcoin has been massively gaining value for years, the only Turks that are not eating because of Bitcoin are the ones who bought it the past few months.

Are you guys me? Exact same story. Network programming on embedded systems. Beej to the rescue.

>Twitter, Facebook and Google need to be treated like utilities [...]

Our generation is reinventing the wheel here, our ancestors had exactly the same problems with the power, water, gas, telephone and rail networks (at some point in time, all those were unregulated and privately owned) and did exactly that. Critical infrastructure needs to be heavily, regulated if not outright publicly owned.

I live in the EU. I don't have instant money transfers (they are within the day but not instant). Across EU countries it still takes days.

It is much much smarter compared to any electronic alternative. It is actually the smartest way to do it if done correctly. Only people who do not understand crypto say stuff like that.