rich_sasha

But the company can just turn around and say, soz we don’t have your deposit. We invested it in Labubu dolls and they crashed in values. Also we lost them. Next time, DYOR.

If a bank collapses, you get your money back from the Fed, no questions asked.

So USDT is a great amazing decentralized censorship-free drop in replacement to USD except:

- much more awkward to use

- more liable to hacks

- deposits are not insured

- fewer legal protections

- doesn’t pay interest (or not easily anyway)

- and as I find out, bannable by a central institution with lower legal oversight than the Fed

I’ll keep a mental note of this.

How do you prevent it though? My understanding is that it’s genuinely hard in crypto. Any automated access control must be baked into smart contracts, which are very limited in terms of the logic they can implement (in practice - in theory Solidity is Turing complete Id imagine).

A bank API can be 10-100s+ kloc if they need that to implement access controls.

Yes that’s what I was referring to (I couldn’t remember his name).

Still my concern would be that the other Zuck would show he has no income and no assets, while a doctor or coder would end up paying extra tax on their retirement savings.

A nice idea I heard is to introduce a minimum tax rate based on wealth. Let’s say the magic number is 0.5%. Then you say, every individual (over some threshold etc) needs to pay max(normal tax calculation, 0.5% of wealth) .

What I like about it is that it doesn’t penalize people who already pay taxes. It’s a lower bound, not an extra.

What makes me weary about any such tax is that in practice, it seems to target the broad middle class - people who have enough assets to be interesting to the tax man, but who don’t have enough to hide it or avoid taxes.

Good point.

Maybe also then, importing module as Cython?

  import django with Cython

compiles on first run?

Not really. Numba is great at optimizing numpy code but not necessarily other general Python code.

Here’s an idea instead (maybe it already exists). Allow a decorator for writing inline Cython. It solves, I think, 90% of the problem. On first run, or eagerly, compile the decorated functions. Basically, Cython is the JIT, and user enables it explicitly.

This way I can easily write inlined functions with proper C speed, in a Python esque language.

Reasons why I rarely use Cython without this:

- unmodified Python code running in Cython is often faster, but not that much. 50% or so is my rule of thumb.

- but the development style is very different for Cython and Python, adding a lot of impedance. Eg reloading doesn’t quite work, profiling is different, you need a build directory and a build step at deployment etc.

- Cython proper is different enough and I’d argue unintuitive enough that if I have to have all these things in place, I might as well wrap my function in Rust.

Such a decorator would give you a low friction way to make things faster when you need it, with scope for making it much faster via all the funny Cython, while keeping Python-esque semantics, in particular "development semantics".

I think it would require some language modification since Cython was definitely a superset of Python; I think some of that syntax has been streamlined, but maybe still a strict superset.

Money is a medium of exchange. If I want something, I can get money in some way, then swap it for something else.

But if I have a near magical genie who can make me anything - software, farming business, physical things - and at a fraction of economic input compared to the legacy monetary policy - then the money is worthless. As the Aztec shells were to the conquistadors.

That they can’t print USD is irrelevant.

One thing that bothers me is that if the AI maximalism turns out correct (which is needed to justify the valuations), why would AI companies respect money and ownership?

So far, even major disruptions were still affecting relatively small segments of the economy. Car lobby in Germany, tech in the US, "Big Pharma/Food/etc”. They needed the rest of the economy.

But if some AI company figures out a way to monopolize everything: new companies, old companies, physical manufacturing - all the things they say they will, please buy here for lots of money - why would they be bound to pay out dividends or otherwise share the fruits of their economic labour?

I’m not saying specifically Anthropic would be looking to screw its investors. Rather, if you control an almost omnipotent genie, wouldn’t the temptation just be too much?

Or temptation aside - will money even have any value? If some AI company rebuilds the economy from scratch, and control everything from accounting to shoe making, why would they respect the value of some fiat tokens? It’d be like the conquistadors respecting the shells and beads of their new Aztec subjects.

Of course, perhaps none of this happens, but then the question is, how good an investment all of this even is.

BP share price recovered though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯/s

Time after time I feel like this is the Luddite path.

Law enforcement can already do incredibly privacy-invading things, and we’re ok with it. House searches (with a warrant), arrests (with probable cause), etc. It’s tightly controlled and can’t be used on a whim.

I feel technology should absolutely be a part of policing, and also tightly controlled, just as these other powers are.

Do we actually know the bans aren’t working? TFA quotes a study in Australia based on self reported use.

In Poland, every now and then they publish self reported results on teenagers’ sex life. It usually turns out something along the lines of, 70% of 12 year olds have had 5+ partners, do not use any protection and took part in at least one orgy.

I can imagine the bans aren’t working but maybe asking teenagers "are you doing the cool banned thing" is not the right way to determine that.

So let’s double the speed - 1.2 Ma. You need half the mass now - 25kg/sec. If you want to have 10 seconds worth of hover - that’s 250kg of gas. Plus the weight of the storage tank. Plus - this is the amounts for hover. Not for any extra force on top of that.

It still doesn’t make much sense to me. And that’s before considering what happens when you get rocket stream hitting a tarmac road. Never mind public roads, this sounds like a major hazard anywhere. Plus the quantity of compressed gas son board (if that’s how it works)… not a pretty crash. At these numbers, imagine 10MJ released all of a sudden - apparently that’s about 2.5kg of TNT.

Surely I’m missing something… as I say, I can’t make sense of it.

The maths of the flying is a little puzzling to me.

Back of the fag pack, let’s say it is light for an electric car and weights 1000kg. I’ll also go on a limb and guess the air flow is actually subsonic - 200m/s would make it 0.6 Ma (still insanely fast!). Even then, that requires 50 kg of air every second. Or 40 m^3. Using everyone’s favorite metric, this empties an Olympic swimming pool in 1 minute. It also requires a MW of power. I mean… that’s a lot??? Though admittedly, only about as much as accelerating 0-60 in 1 sec (50% of that in fact). So the flying would draw as much power as accelerating at full throttle.

Power requirements would go down a lot with slower exhaust speed, but then you need to shift more fluid. 40 m^3 already seems like a lot to me.

I get it’s a neat little demo and they have to get SpaceX into the picture somehow, but still I don’t understand how it’s supposed to add up. Also, what do I know - just a humble physicist.