rjromero

That’s assuming people purchase assets that increase in value over time. And that most people are fiscally responsible and manage their debt properly. Which isn’t the case for probably 90%+ of Americans.

It’s very easily to live a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle (even in higher incomes, people adapt to expensive lifestyles very quickly) and spend a lot of money on vacations, cars, eating out etc... and only consider your living costs as a passive constant that you pay no attention to. I imagine most people think of spending and budget allocation in this way, so for them having a mortgage makes more sense.

Rather if you think of every purchase in terms of your total net worth and you spend a significant amount of your income towards saving, investments, and assets that don’t depreciate, then sure, maybe renting is your better option.

I’m pretty sure if Arizona’s lawmakers understood the underlying nature of machine learning and autonomous driving, they wouldn’t allow self driving cars to operate.

I don’t care how good your models and data are, until you’re able to write an algorithm that can fully handle and learn from a situation it was completely unprepared for, it will always encounter edge cases like this.

This is what happens when we have a society of people saying AI is already here, people like Elon Musk saying AI is a “significant threat” despite "AI" being essentially a black box statistical model in it's current form. From what I’ve seen, the general public thinks we’re 20+ years of AI than we really are.

You need general AI before AI can drive a car, full stop. Otherwise, you need to isolate roads from other human drivers pedestrians, and cyclists. It just won’t be reasonably safe until then.

Once again, pure retardation. The blockchain is completely useless if not backed by miners and value creation, otherwise it’s just a regular distributed server.

I’m glad you’re exposing yourself in this way to me, gives me that much more confidence in you being wrong entirely and me being right. Which I already knew, but I appreciate the extra confirmation.

EDIT: HAHAHAHAHAHA just saw your other comment saying Ripple literally has more intrinsic value than Bitcoin. My GOD. MY GOD. PLEASE KILL YOURSELF IMMEDIATELY. You are absolutely done, brain is roasted my friend. Your view of the world is about as accurate as that of my 3 week pup.

Lol at that subtle jab. With your IQ/RQ I would really be surprised if you have a net worth of over $3.50.

So in the dystopian future of Chinese bank account/citizen social points and even present-day American Fed/Bank collusion, you are continuously supportive of centralization? And now you claim the experiment has been "worth playing out" while Bitcoin has experienced the most adoption it's ever had within the last few months? What?????? Please tell me you are joking.

Also, what incentive do governments have to keep people paying their taxes and using their own fiat that corporations seem to be able to control and play with hundreds of billions on their own accord and on separate rules. What about privacy, with the government having easy access to every financial institution I encounter and every transaction I make, why should I agree to that?

Opinions are irrelevant. People will store the value they generate by working in any medium that offers them the most security and long-term increase of value over time. If a cryptocurrency is more secure, convenient, and less deflationary than someone's local fiat counterpart, why would they not store most of their value in it? If we go through 20 years of seeing Bitcoin outperform the inflation of a dollar, no hijackings of the blockchain, no breaking of SHA or ECDSA, why would I not store a majority of my value in it?