What? I mean.. seriously, what? There are people with great genetic potential that lives like couch potatoes. What good is having the potential of you don't use it. Genetics is important, but there are many elements and just dropping this here is, IMO, irresponsible, because some people will read this and go... Ah, I'm out of shape because of genetics, nothing I can do, oh well.
This is merely your failure to imagine it. Maybe they enjoy it, maybe they have a specific goal they want to achieve, have some sort of obsession, maybe they feel duty to all the people they lead and relie on them, think they are making the world better so they feel compelled to continue working, are mad with power and enjoy lording over other people. There are many many reasons why one would work after being financially secure, and they're all equally valid as a personal motivator.
And, anyways, I think you say this now, but if you were to get those 10 millions you would probably change your tune. A lot of people would find some other project to dedicate their energy. Especially the kind of people that make stuff happen.
It can also be as simple as finding meaning in the habit of work and the growth which may come with it. Nihilism and hedonism wear thin after a short while.
I am one of the person who, if they got 40 mil USD tomorrow, would just work much harder on stuff I like to work on (which is making open source software sustainable in robotics), because I would have to spend less time have to take care about the economics of daily life. I could get a chef to cook me personalized healthy meals. I could have a mini-gym at home (which is not that expensive to be honest).
but I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO, and so with working out and eating consuming 4 hours and sleeping 6 hours a day and 2 hour of spouse time. I legit have 12 hours a day to work everyday. I could easily do that in a sustainable manner 6 days a week, and spending Sunday relaxing by helping out in my parent's farm and then relaxing in the evening before going back to work next week.
Seems like an ideal life for me. The only difference from today is the extra 3 hours I spend in traffic and an average 1 hour daily in running errands. And extra work on Saturday like fetching groceries, looking after my home, fixing stuff etc.
If I get money, I could save that 4 hour of my life and dedicate it to working on something I really like.
This is crazy to me. I almost think it’s rage bait but will give you the benefit of the doubt. The lifestyle you describe leaves no room for friends, relationships, or hobbies. Working 72 hours a week is not sustainable for anyone over the long term unless they truly have no interest in any of the three things I listed. That may be the case for you, but that’s exceedingly uncommon.
> I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO
You need a lot less than 40m$ to get a house 10 minutes from SFO, Daly City or outer neighborhoods in SF have homes for less than a million for sale right now
Right, but the odds of this happening is small(ish) - I'm certain there is a sweet spot for witholding time. If they don't find a block within the time interval, then effectively all the work for that time is "wasted" by the other participants since it could not have been put on the chain anyway AND the witholder has a headstart of a couple of seconds searching for a new block.
Wasting time would mean not receiving the rewards if they find a block. But that's not the case here. If they find a block within the time interval, they get the rewards (and the withheld block is discarded).
the odds depend on how much hash power you have. if you're at 5% of the network you can wait longer than if you're at 1%. the other really big problem here is it creates incentives for miners to work together to be able to delay longer
I think Oppenheimer is pretty fair as it goes. It's pretty clear with it being the US perspective and they give credit to the other countries that they have good scientists that will figure the thing out (and they did). I think for exposing a man's experience, it's quite good. What makes me wrong? (An honest invitation to illuminate me)
I think it's a silly conspiracy, but, even if it were, this kind of supression would not be possible to be done by the corporations themselves. They're simply too big and too incompetent because of the org overhead to orchestrate such a thing. The state being co opted on the other hand might be capable of doing this on their behalf. I could believe that. (but I don't it's just silly)
My personal theory is that one of the (key?) reasons the USA doesn’t have affordable universal healthcare is that it keeps most people tethered to Big Inc.
If you remove the incentive from Big Inc’s healthcare benefits, work at such places is far less appealing.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and agree.
Also, it’s amazing how inefficient medium+ businesses are. I think we should see small businesses thriving due to the cost/weight of the bureaucracy they inflict on themselves, but we don’t.
I think healthcare costs/requirements and unfair access to capital keep the inefficient machine chugging along, cutting off routes for smart people to start businesses, innovate, and improve our economy.
This is one of the manifestations of Crony Capitalism. That is, manipulation (i.e., typically regulation) that puts its thumb on the scale and picks winners and losers.
Most people who complain about capitalism are actually complaining about Crony Capitalism. The fact that they don’t understand the difference\+* is what makes CC so “magical.”
** The NFL is not the Premier League, and vice versa. Both play football, yet no one would confuse the two. Capitalism and Crony Capitalism should have the same differentiation and clarity. The reason they do not is not accidental.
Capitalism evolves into Crony Capitalism just as Communism evolves into Dictatorship and Tyranny, Feudalism evolves into Serfdom, etc. I'm just surprised it lasted this long...
conspiracy ? a flawed term.. I can tell you that 50 years ago in coastal California the proportion of Big Box retail to ordinary small business was vastly different; so different that you would not tend to believe it. The top 10 massive retailers did not exist, and thousands upon thousands of "small business" were operating. Not only "radio repair" or "clothe yardage stores" either.. I mean many of the same goods and services that are now commonly purchased via massive chain corporate stores.
Secondly, the flow of cheap plastic things from China turned into a steady stream of more and more sophisticated, and low priced, goods.. replacing things that were brand names, hand made, or niche markets. Senator Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum were particularly involved in that change fyi.
Lastly for now, the newspapers and media landscape. Books, magazines and daily newspapers.. immensely and unimaginably at the time, gone.
Technology plus boomers.. "like a pig through a boa constrictor" .. what is left is this headline. It is not only in the USA.
> Secondly, the flow of cheap plastic things from China turned into a steady stream of more and more sophisticated, and low priced, goods.. replacing things that were brand names, hand made, or niche markets. Senator Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum were particularly involved in that change fyi.
More commonly attributed to the administration of President Bill Clinton.
Hah. This is merely your lack of imagination speaking. It could be that reality plays out that you are right, but what a sad, constrained world of ideas that would be.
> There is nothing to prepare for because the only possible war between the USA and China is a nuclear war and such a war has no victor.
I think there are 2 false statements here. First, you could have conventional conflict alone, the same way you had WW2 without extensive use of chemical weapons.
Second, there are possible paths to have a winnable nuclear war, actually, the US did have one a couple of decades ago and it won. I do agree that saying this out loud though is dangerous because the reason for nuclear taboo is also based on the perception of "end of world" it has.
> Second, there are possible paths to have a winnable nuclear war, actually, the US did have one a couple of decades ago and it won.
Well yeah because at that time they were the only one who had a nuclear bomb. That situation didn't last long.
I think it's really great that it's such a taboo, otherwise these things would be used a lot, incurring all sorts of pollution, mass casualties and chances to escalate. It's a good thing that these have not been used since WWII though I do think their existence as a deterrent has brought us a bit more peace.
reply