Not much I can say other than that was a disappointing piece of trash from Paul.
The whole tirade against wokeness by the far right is nothing more than a bizarre attempt to stigmatize those who want to improve things for segments of society.
A more legitimate article might have focused on tactics such as shaming and cancelling those who disagree which is problematic in many instances, but Graham paints with too broad of a brush and comes across as another conservative whose only interest is to discredit those who think differently.
The left needs to stop accusing other members of the left of being "far-right" everytime they dare to have a different opinion on a topic.
That tendency of the left to ostracise its own rather than engage in debate, is exactly what pushed people like Elon and Rogan away, along with much of the centre, and is exactly why Trump won.
Whether he endorsed Harris or not is irrelevant to my point.
It was a poorly written article. I am actually very sympathetic with some of the pushback against some things associated with wokeness, like poorly implemented DEI policies that don't address root causes for representation disparities.
And you have no evidence that any of this is why Trump won. From the people I know who supported Trump, they did it for much different reasons.
Linear algebra is a relatively straight forward subject. I won't say easy because there are bits that aren't, and I struggled with it when I was first exposed to it in college. But in graduate school revisited it and didn't have a problem.
So, I really agree that it's about timing and curriculum. For one, it appears somewhat abstract until you really understand geometrically what's happening.
So, I surmise that most non-mathematicians don't have quite the mathematical maturity to absorb the standard pedagogy when they first approach the subject.
Before smart phones or the rise of the internet your information was mined by credit agencies for use by banks, employers and other forms of credit lending.
Credit cards and Banks sold your data to third parties for marketing purposes.
Payroll companies like ADP also shared your data with the credit agencies.
This is not a new phenomenon and has been the currency of a number of industries for a while.
The only thing that has changed is the types of data collected. Personally, I think these older forms of data collection are quite a bit more insidious than some of the data mining done by a game like Niantic for some ml model.
I have a lot more control over and less insidious consequences from these types of data collection. I can avoid the game or service if I like. There isn't much I can do to prevent a credit agency from collecting my data.
For me it's been fear of impacting friendships. I have some friends who have very different political views than myself, although I consider myself a centrist.
Some of my friends are no longer on speaking terms with each other because there identity is not just wrapped up in their political beliefs but also in opposition of the other side.
It's a sad state of affairs and a fairly recent one, in my opinion.
I don't remember political disagreements being such a big deal before the rise of Trump.
During the Trump Clinton election he changed the game and politics became more about insulting and denigrating your opposition.
The information Credit Bureaus and Banks store is much scarier. They know your salary every place you've worked and lived. And with all the recent links anyone can find this information on the dark web.
But how does that help us? Well, after we remove a red ball the probability the next ball will be red given the first was red and there were U red balls initially in the urn is:
P(B2=red|B1=red,U) = (U-1)/99.
From this we see that if U was in the range of 51 to 100, then P(B2=red|B1=red,U) > 1/2, i.e., the second ball is more likely to be Red.
So let's compute the following where we are summing over U ∈ [51,100]:
So we find that P(U ∈ [51,100]|B1=Red) = 75.5/101 ≈ 3/4 which means that given the first ball we picked was red, then roughly 3/4 of the time we would expect the next ball being red to be more likely.
This seems like a much more straightforward way to think about it for me.
The petrodollar relied on burning significant resources, although its power is waning now. Gold relies on mining. As for Ethereum, it's proof-of-stake, implying it's not decentralized.
The only alternative currency that wouldn't burn energy would be shares in transferable energy itself. This would require a global energy grid which we don't have, and are not intelligent enough to seek to develop. Once such a grid exists, then shares in transferable energy would have a relatively stable value.
The problem with bitcoin is that past work is worth more than future work. More work/energy has to be expended now for 1 bitcoin than in the past. It's just as an unequal system as inflationary fiat.
You're not taking into account that the work was far riskier in the past - a much higher risk of it being wasted. It also required much scarcer knowledge in order to understand the value of bitcoin.
You buy bitcoin at the price you deserve.
Bitcoin is inheritly more equal than fiat because the cost of issuance is the same for everyone i.e. you don't have a select group of people who can legally counterfeit it and accrue enough power to effectively control the world.
Not really. Back then miners risked less work for less certain value. Nowadays miners risk more work, for more certain value. While it may seem like the past risked more, the risks/work hasn't really changed.
Yes, that's my point. Any extra gains in value that early adopters received was offset by the greater risk they took.
If anything risk/reward ratio is a better proposition than it was then - we have 15 years of solid operation, nation state adoption, ETFs and far less volatility yet the upside is still enormous.
You can buy "risky" bitcoin now at $50K, or you can wait until $50M when everyone and his dog is using it to store their wealth. The choice is yours.
If global finance ran on Bitcoin instead of on bank ledgers, all that energy would still need to be spent, but then an astronomical amount more energy would be spent on transaction processing on top.
Most likely they are not intentionally burning it for sake of burning it. And they do run almost all of the money in the world, so some energy expenditure is expected.
The whole tirade against wokeness by the far right is nothing more than a bizarre attempt to stigmatize those who want to improve things for segments of society.
A more legitimate article might have focused on tactics such as shaming and cancelling those who disagree which is problematic in many instances, but Graham paints with too broad of a brush and comes across as another conservative whose only interest is to discredit those who think differently.