the fundamental problem with cryptocurrency is that it requires being your bank and all that entails for IT security, or else you need to rely on a thrid party and there defeats the purpose and meaning of it being cryptocurrency.
It's impossible for a layperson to use crypticut effectively without becoming an expert, so the only broad education you can give is "stay away, as with day-trading stocks, and options, and any fast money schemes".
> What's changed: automation creating value automatically, different from rent-seeking.
In today's inflation-targeting macroeconomic framework, automation causes a decrease in the price of goods and labour, which would have a deflationary impact. To prevent structural deflation, interest rates are reduced, which increases the value of assets such as stocks, bonds, and real estate.
So I think automation can also support rent-seeking, although more indirectly.
Factory workers were paid several times as much as agricultural labourers, that’s why they went to work in factories. Industrialisation also drastically reduced the cost and increased the quality of manufactured goods including basics like dyed cloth, bread, soap, etc making them much more affordable to people.
Starting a long game from scratch on every mistake is from an era was when content was incredibly expensive. Forced repetition, especially of the early part of the game, is a cheap gimmick.
> Because that person is paid $2.50/hr for their work.
This is an illegal wage according to federal minimum wage laws. I can't imagine the GP commenter should be responsible for labor law violations beyond reporting it to the relevant local agency. Many states go even farther, requiring the same minimum wage (excluding tips) even for tipped employees, but the federal law already requires minimum wage including tips.
Reading that study, I’m not convinced, it’s 20 boys and girls, and the method doesn’t appear foolproof to me. To be clear, I don’t really have an issue accepting there may be some difference, but I feel like it’s extremely overstated.
De Bruijn sequence is more restricted: a cyclic portmontout over a "complete" lexicon of fixed sized words, where every possible string is a valid word.
Strictly speaking, treating the word list as a ring buffer might actually make it a little smaller. Perhaps more importantly, the cycle makes the problem almost exactly analogous to the Traveling Salesman Problem (Although there is an acyclic TSP, it is somewhat lacking in interesting properties like isomorphism)
They aren't "just" pair reprogramming -- they are practically married. They pair only with each other, forever, and they are best friends. It's not an arbitrary or rotating matchup.
When I get paid by credit credit card it's "final", because that transaction can't be cancelled, only a new transaction can be created to undo it without my consent.
Patrick loves to write coyly, but his point is simple: If the government can find the money they can take it back from you.
What he misses is that it only works if they can find the keys (or the next best thing -- your body).
It's impossible for a layperson to use crypticut effectively without becoming an expert, so the only broad education you can give is "stay away, as with day-trading stocks, and options, and any fast money schemes".