Quitting is the easy part if you don't have anything better lined up. Some people just go for it and always seem to fall on their feet. Others hesitate forever.
This has me curious on how much of the Management style of Andy Grove is still alive inside intel. Do they change the company culture and _want_ these people to leave or was it mismanagement?
Here's what normal people see and hear when you enter the room: Nerd opens mouth: "Blablabla quibberish, you're all idiots, hear me express your problem way overcomplicated. Also, I need more budget and cannot promise to actually deliver a solution anytime soon because of more quibberish."
If you want to be trusted start acting like normal people. Stop talking in technical quibberish. Stop behaving like a nerd. Shape up. Get some social interaction with normal people. Stop complaining all day long and start delivering what was asked on time and on budget.
Usually you call them tools. They turn your screw at the command of their superior in whichever way they are told to. They provide great leverage for a weak upper management.
Try burning dead trees or their derivatives indoors or underground and suddenly you care about zero emission vehicles. Zero emission here means that they don't emit at the place where they are used e.g. in an underground mine or a city center. Electricity generation in a power plant with proper filters is much cleaner than having many local burners emitting their exhaust right into your breathing air.
Great question, one could use existing known chemicals as a starting point. There could be a potential to use fMRI readings on a model organism in realtime to generate data.
Compelling. I wonder what else this could be applied to in addition to psychedelics? Anti-anxiety and other sensory affecting drugs?
If you wanna get Black Mirror-esque, perhaps a Soma-like medication from Brave New World (essentially pacifies/zombifies you by creating endless bliss) could be made. Or the "bliss" drug episode of Doctor Who.
It amazes me how long and how slowly the value of our money can be eroded without casing a hard crash. This has been going on for over 100 years in the US. Money used to pay things used to be gold, then fully gold backed, then partially gold backed, then no gold but security backed, then securities are diluted more and more. The next logical steps would be that the central banks buy up the bankrupt economy and introduce social credit as currency which is backed by surveillance.
Right, because everything was so much better when you could, for no particularly good reason, relate money to a marginally useful-to-jewellers-and-dentists soft metal. I suppose I shouldn't expect economic literacy on Hacker News, but the twist on the standard goldbug narrative ("social credit backed by surveillance") is at least original, if nutty.
I did not say that gold backed currency is better for everybody. I'm just amazed at the time span over which the dilution is happening. And I don't think that anybody can deny that our money is slowly losing its purchasing power.
it is slowly losing purchasing power. That's called inflation and nobody denies it or is surprised by it.
In fact what people are generally surprised about is how little inflation is has occurred in the USA compared to how much money has been pumped into the system via QE.
Mainstream economic opinion is not particularly concerned by the fact that our money is slowly losing its purchasing power.
There's a general consensus that a small amount of inflation is useful, although the reasons are pretty cynical (i.e. wage flexibility -> "it's easier to give someone a 0% raise under conditions of 2% inflation than it is to give someone of -2% pay cut under conditions of 0% inflation").
You might make the argument that making it psychologically easier for employers to hand out small 'in-real-terms' pay cuts is wrong in itself, of course, but that's another discussion.
Your "next logical step" isn't logical in any sense of the word. You're just recounting a few steps of history (that actually went along with increased stability of the financial system) and then suddenly suggesting it's a preamble to some scenario that's currently en vogue among the paranoid.
"backed by surveillance" simply does not mean anything. At least not in the sense of "backed by" as used in those other cases.
We can always make more money if we really want to. The economy might run out of oil, sand, gold, land, and willpower but it will never run out of money until the central banks stop the money supply or politicians cause a hard fault.
No wonder you are hiding behind a throwaway, as you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and are just posting mindless drivel. If you want to know the outcome of “we can always make more money” attitudes, look no further than Zimbabwe. In ~2007 they had a 50 cent paper note. ~6 months later a common paper note was $10,000,000,000. Just a short while after that, paper notes were being printed in one hundred trillion dollar increments. What could you buy with that $100T note? Basically not even something from a vending machine (aka worth less than 1 USD in value).
Source:
I have all the above paper notes from Zimbabwe and have read about the economic policies that led to the collapse of the currency.
I did not say that a bank can make everybody rich by printing money just that there is no limit to the money that the banks can print, as is evidenced by Zimbabwe. They ran out of everything else but not money. We are basically expressing the same thing from different viewpoints.
If Zimbabwe is your example that shows that you're correct, it also shows that your point is completely irrelevant in the real world. So they didn't run out of money. That did them no good whatsoever.
Actually, wrong again. They did run out of “money” and tried to mask that by continuing to print currency. “Currency” is a physical thing, it’s essentially a promissory note. “Money” is an intangible thing, essentially a stored value. Currency that is worth nothing isn’t “money” as the promise printed on it has no stored value.
If the US really ran out of resources, I wouldn't count it out. In the mean time, it's more like we prop up dictators who agree to sell oil exclusively in our currency (see Saudi Arabia) and invade every country small enough to push around that tries to sell oil in anything but US dollars (see Saddam being in talks with France, or Gaddafi planning to sell oil in the gold dinar). Since the whole world has to buy oil, the whole world has to have dollars. Then we print more US dollars, devaluing the existing US dollars in global circulation and effectively stealing wealth from the rest of the world for the benefit of our banking system. Yeah, we also give sweet contracts to Haliburton so that they can pillage third-world oil fields in the middle of our wars and there is some immediate benefit from that as well, but I'm betting that propping up the petrodollar is the most important way that we're leveraging the military for economic ends.
Sure. But ultimately, debt is meaningless unless collected. In a scenario of global economic collapse, anyone who wants to collect their debt (if it even means anything anymore) from the US would have to go through the US military first.
