That’s an arbitrary, and pointless, distinction. 100,000,000 different people can own a single satoshi. What does it matter that each individual does not own the entire thing? The question is whether Bitcoin has enough supply, and there actually is no question because the supply is effectively infinite.
The scarcity argument is just factually wrong. Bitcoin is not scarce.
You are incorrect. The supply of bitcoin is limited. Whether you express that limited supply as units of bitcoin or units of satoshi does not change that the supply will never exceed that amount.
Doing a unit conversion doesn't change anything. The limited supply argument is not implying that you won't be able to own fractional bitcoins, it's arguing that the amount of bitcoin you do own with always be a fixed proportion of the total possible supply (in reality it's proportion will grow as people lose access to their keys) so it won't get devalued by the total possible supply increasing. Remember, value is relative to the supply. Looking at your bitcoin in terms of satoshis doesn't change it's value.
The supply of Bitcoin is 21 quadrillion satoshi. You are making an arbitrary distinction that an entire Bitcoin is some meaningful thing. I’m not doing a conversation. A Bitcoin is 100,000,000 satoshi. That is just a literal fact.
People want the supply of Bitcoin to be limited because their economic models depend on that false reality. If there is 21 quadrillion of something, it is not scarce. Wanting something to be scarce doesn’t make it scarce.
I don't care what unit you want to use. I place no special importance on a whole bitcoin vs a fraction of one. When people say bitcoin is scarce because there will only every be 21 million they are not saying that you can't subdivide them further, nor are they saying that only 21 million people can ever own bitcoin. They are expressing that it's supply has a fixed maximum. Do you disagree that the supply of bitcoin is fixed at a maximum of 21 million (or however many equivalent satoshi or any other unit)? This is what we are talking about.
I’ve yet to see any renewable plan that could cover big northern cities.
Where are we going to build a solar farm to cover NYC, DC, and Philadelphia? There is 9 hours of daylight in the dead of winter, and it’s not exactly known for being sunny in January.
NYC alone needs 11,000 megawatt hours per day. My back of the envelope fermi estimate is a solar farm covering approximately 16,000 acres. Forget the metro area, that’s just for NYC. Probably double if you include the entire metro area.
You aren’t going to find that kind of land within 300 miles of NYC.
First of all, did you look at a map? 300 miles from NYC gets you to upstate New York, or western Pennsylvania, or rural West Virginia. Second, NYISO, which covers New York State, already imports lots of power from Quebec, Ontario, New England, and PJM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and more).
You say 'did you look at a map' but have you looked at a topographical map? I don't see much room that isn't either protected forests or the Appalachian mountains, in some cases it's both.
Well, I don't know enough about the industry to analyze specific locations, but it's easy to find real-world projects in upstate NY and elsewhere: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/03/large-scale-so.... The projects named in that article will apparently get more than halfway to the "11,000 megawatt hours per day" estimate.
Anyway, the more important point is that we already have large regional grids across the country, and while it's obviously nice to have generation and consumption close to each other, it's not a requirement.
Why do you think solar and wind could not be built in the Appalachian mountains? Wind in particular would benefit there. And the mountains are an excellent place to build off-river pumped hydro storage facilities.
Have you looked at a map? I live in NY, and there is absolutely no place for such a massive solar farm.
The numbers I quoted were just for NYC, and they weren’t adjusted for the winter sunlight problem. To power the entire metro area would likely require 40,000 acres. To cover the entire region likely 60,000 acres. This land does not exist.
It isn't that big an area in the scheme of things. If you try to find a single place for it it probably won't work of course, but it is a tiny little fraction of the developed land already devoted to New York.
New York State is 35 million acres. You don't think 0.2% of that, including rooftops of existing buildings, might be useable for solar/wind/battery storage? And again, NY already uses tons of out-of-state energy.
Why is there a requirement that power be generated within 300 miles? NYC already gets plenty of power from further away than that. With HVDC transmission, we can transmit power thousands of miles efficiently. PNW hydro power is used in LA, for example.
I find that most of these payoff periods are generous on one side, but lax on the other. For example, does the payoff calculator include the opportunity costs? I doubt it, because it would likely be impossible to ever achieve break even.
Payoff time calculations shouldn't include opportunity costs. Calculating opportunity cost would require knowing about every other possible project.
The right procedure is to calculate payoff periods for each project separately. Then, when deciding which projects to fund, you choose them starting with the shortest payoff times until your budget is used up.
Opportunity cost is simple. It’s a calculation of what your money could have been doing if you put it to use doing something else. The easiest to estimate is the market opportunity cost.
If you spend $10,000 on a solar installation that is $10,000 you could have put in the market. After 15 years you saved $10,000 in electricity, and you’re supposedly profiting. However, that $10,000 investment would have grown to $24,000 at a modest 6%. So you’re actually still in the red, and you’ll likely never catch up and break even.
If you took out a loan it’s the opportunity cost on the payments. There is actually a theoretical break even here, but it’s not 15 years.
If you’re doing it for some altruistic reasons then it doesn’t matter. But if you’re making a payback calculation, you should do it properly. Opportunity cost is a real thing.
The opportunity cost for what? Half the reason why this particular project exists is that Biden has realized that the best way to bring money into the hands of people is by giving them a job that is useful to society.
As it is right now there is enough funding for every conceivable project, assuming the project is profitable (pays debts back) the only real limits are physical resources and unemployed workers and running out of unemployed workers is a policy goal. If we hit real limits, then interest rates will go up and lenders will demand greater returns, which may mean that a solar project like this may not get started and people start seeking out more productive ideas. However, the most important thing is that investments pay their debts back.
The opportunity cost for the cash you had to put down to install a solar array. Or the opportunity cost of the interest payments you’re making on a loan.
> Actual diamonds have occlusions, slight color shifts, unique sparkle patterns
All of which can either be recreated in a lab now, or are likely to be possible before long. See for example synthetic star sapphires.
> I like rocks and minerals
Good for you, so does my step-dad (he's a geologist). The man was a nightmare to try and drag around the New York museum of natural history, I thought we'd never get out of the mineral section...
Would you prefer that the USPS join the public pension crisis? It is not scandalous to force a public organization to fund their employee retirements. What is scandalous is the massive unfunded public pensions that are going to wallop the economy over the next 10-20 years.
> Hoffman said he thinks DeJoy’s real goal is to erode public confidence in the government-controlled postal system in order to build support for privatizing it.
We don’t need to privatize. We need to get rid of it and switch to digital for everything except physical goods. Revamp USPS as a package delivery company, or just outright get rid of it and let the existing delivery companies handle it.
USPS has an $80 billion annual budget. Put that money to use investing in something that has more use in the future. We don’t need to invest more in spam delivery.
Good for hobby or personal projects, but not if you’re building something for work. Many of these “free” tiers are designed to vendor lock you before they walk you off a pricing cliff.
Take Auth0. Free for up to 7,000 user but then it jumps to about $250/month. Migrating from Auth0 is a pain. You should really only consider these “free” services if you think you’ll always be in the free tier, and if you’d use the service even if it wasn’t free.
The time it takes to integrate ( and switch) many of these services may not be much less than spinning up something comparable yourself between docker, k8, lxc containers, etc.
Prematurely building scaling into every single layer of a test project might be a bit much, especially when it might not be known where the bottlenecks may occur.
In many cases, early prototypes/mvps should be semi throwaway anyways.
The idea of having a turnkey stack like this, maybe even with a script remains intriguing tho :)
> What happens if you want to discuss a disputed nation?
You don’t?
> Banning politics is impossible because everything in life has some hand in politics.
Hard disagree. You can talk about how houses are too expensive right now without someone getting political about why. It’s simple. Just don’t get political.
If you are an international company you have to discuss these things. You literally have to discuss them for legal risk reasons, but us for cultural reasons. For instance, if you are a US company do you honor Crimea as a Russian territory... A lot of companies avoid working with the region altogether because of their acknowledgement of politics.
Another example is if you are a US company do you work with China knowing you will have to share your Chinese users data with the Chinese government. These are political and moral conversations that are decisions that should align with the companies values thus they HAVE to be discussed.
It's delusional to think you can avoid personal politics completely in a business. Basecamp is picking and choosing what is appropriate, and that's really the issue. It's an emotional response from their employees based on inconsistent behavior of management.
Hey guess what we're doing right now? We're discussing the issues of Crimea, Russia, and China... and we aren't getting political about it. Incredible. Maybe impossible?
>If you are an international company you have to discuss these things
No, you don't. These are business discussions. You discuss the issue, not the politics behind it. You do it professionally because you are a professional adult making business decisions. You leave the politics of it for Twitter on your own free time.
>It's delusional to think you can avoid personal politics completely in a business.
It's delusional and absurd to think that you need to bring politics into any discussion at work.
I don't understand the nuance of what you are saying. Focusing on the political issues is inherently political. One of the most common phrases you hear from a politician is "let's get back to talking about the issues." Yes they are business decisions but they are also political. If you choose to work with a country or not. It's not based on money alone, but also your leadership's values that are guided by their political compass. These aren't algorithmically driven decisions. These are human beings coming from diverse backgrounds making political decisions for how to increase the power of their company on the world in a way that that they can live with from a morality perspective and at the same time trying not to alienate their employees. I don't understand how this isn't political in nature.
> Yes they are business decisions but they are also political.
No, they aren’t. You’re trying to make them political. This is entirely of your own doing.
Take housing. It’s too expensive! Many people would agree. We can talk about houses being expensive without someone detailing the conversation by injecting politics into it. It devolves into politics when you try to let other people know why YOU think housing is too expensive. You are the one injecting politics into conversation where it isn’t needed, and absolutely isn’t wanted.
If you want to talk about politics go get a Twitter account.
What? No. You pay with your data. You pay with your privacy.
And the ads additionally destroy legitimate paid services. Ads have destroyed the entire internet economy, and brought upon a surveillance state.
This blog post is more detached from reality than the Q board on 8kun.