Look up crisis theory, the rate of profit tends to fall in capitalist systems. Because each company is driven by competitive self-interest, it is incapable of acting for the good of the whole. You simply cannot devote resources to anything but trying to out-compete your rivals and in doing so the profit for everyone tends lower and lower until you have a crisis.

I’m curious

I don’t believe that is accurate. Beside moons (which don’t orbit the sun), Pluto is the largest and closest dwarf planet.

If those are the only options, I am choosing juggalo

Chatgpt… please summarize the Gartner hype cycle for a 5 year old

deleted by creator

When you have commodity money, the value of the money is derived from the value of the commodity. You don’t get to assign arbitrarily higher values to the money because the market determines the value. But yes, all speculative assets typically have a higher extrinsic value compared with their intrinsic value but I don’t believe that has anything to do with it being a medium of exchange or not. That is just supply and demand.

Gold is a commodity and you can create a currency that is backed by a commodity so you aren’t actually trading the commodity itself.

That is not true, for the vast majority of the history of money it was based on a commodity that was valuable in its own sense. It is only in the last century that we have begun experimenting with currencies that are not pegged to the value of a commodity.

Cryptocurrencies derived their value from being a network of users (metcalfe’s law) so they are more like a commodity money. Thing about something like Meta, which has a valuation in the trillions despite its physical assets not be worth nearly that and its functionality as a website being easily replicated on an alternative platform. The users are what is valuable.

It’s called accelerationism and it is stupid

Hmmm anyone remember when Andrew Yang was running for president and said that data was the new oil and that people should own the content they put on social media?

Sure and people who think you can’t have monetary policy with crypto are too uninformed to be worth discussing the merits of each system.

I’m sure we can all wax lyrical about what we think money is and lord knows whenever cryptocurrency is brought up the armchair currency experts are always there. So thank you for that!

Its not the same thing, its just incrementally more decentralized than the current system but potentially less so then a proof of work one (and even then only in theory, in practice a lot of POS chains are more decentralized than BTC).

But the most important aspect of crypto is actually not decentralization. Decentralization is necessary but only to a point. What is more important is for the cryptocurrency to be permissionless. In that way, you are correct it is replicating a system we already have… cash. It basically taking the properties of cash and bring that into the digital realm. We lost so much when our money and other assets became digital and that it what crypto is trying to give us back. It crazy to me that people don’t want to see that happen and buy into these superficial critiques, which, even if true are just engineering problems that can be overcome.

But I am no stranger to seeing people completely sleep on radical shifts in technology. Hell the fediverse is just like that too and if you leave it for a moment you will see people trashing it in the same way. So whatever, keep your fiat. I hope the future is one where both systems an co-exist.

As opposed to a currency issued and secured by a central bank?

Yes… some with billions of dollars in a crypto has a billion more reasons to want the network secured.

Cybersecurity is definitely in demand in Canada but we are also going through a housing affordability crisis and generally our tech salaries are lower in compared with the US. You would almost certainly be taking a step back in standard of living unless you swing a remote work situation from a US employer.

I recently left a WFH only company. The environment was toxic and there was definitely some insecurity on the part of management regarding worker productivity. There was a much larger emphasis on constantly showing to management what you were working on and proving you were using your work day productively.

It was a culture shift I didn’t adapt well to and left.

Yeah he volunteered to to be solider, so what? Being a solider is not the same thing as being a war criminal and the burden of proof still applies. War is messy and it is entirely possible that this division committed atrocities that haven’t been proven but the mere possibility is not sufficient reason to label him a war criminal. You are de-meaning the term by doing so.

Either you have specific evidence to support your charge or realize you are participating in sensationalism.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator