all the ones using it for ios development. i don't know how many did, but this really sucks for those of us that have been using xamarin / .net for ios
>Meanwhile, this long protracted failure has been accompanied by a massive increase in stupid, toxic, illegal, scammy behaviour
are you talking about the internet or crypto? or maybe you were referring to finance. wall st? i get hundreds of scam emails a day, shall we get rid of email too? seriously, just because there are scams, doesn't mean that the internet, or wall st, or crypto are all worthless. that's just lazy and ignoring that scams are from people, and not from the tech. some people will use whatever means they have available to scam other people out of money. that doesn't remotely mean that all of crypto is a scam.
the value of something like bitcoin is generally going to be related to the value of the network. if you can envision it being more useful in the future, consider what the function is, and what it means for the value of the network as a whole.
some examples to explain what i'm saying, not necessarily what i think will happen per se
bitcoin replaces, or at least augments, gold as a "store of value inflation hedge" - in theory it should be a great inflation hedge. there are a limited number of bitcoin, 21 million max, but we keep printing trillions and trillions of new dollars. gold also doesn't do anything productive, it just sits there and acts as a hedge on inflation.
in this scenario, the market cap of gold is something like 8 trillion. if bitcoin takes some of this job, it's market cap must get a lot bigger. functionally, we have 8 trillion "dollars" of wealth that are currently stored in gold. if we wanted to "store" 8 trillion "dollars" of wealth in bitcoin, we can't currently. the entire market cap of bitcoin is only a few hundred billion. For it to be an inflation hedge on the scale of gold, the price has to rise tremendously.
this same calculation can be done for whatever potential usefulness you come up with. Like if you think it can replace the USD as a reserve currency for setting international oil trades, the market cap of bitcoin has to get exponentially bigger just to handle the scale of those markets.
now, i don't think it's likely to become the world's reserve currency, certainly not anytime soon, but if it were you can see where it would have to have more value to be able to do so. I do think it is a great inflation hedge, and I think lots of money managers are going to start recommending to client to put 1-3-5% of their portfolios into bitcoin as a hedge. That's happening right now. IF that goes mainstream, the market cap of bitcoin HAS to go up significantly to handle all that new demand, given that the supply is capped.
Is Bitcoin not infinitely divisible though? So it would just be inflated by dividing infinitely. It's the same as having infinite amount the other way.
how is that the same? having more spots after the decimal is not the same as having more in front. cut an apple in half you don't have 2 apples, you have 2 halves. 21 million total bitcoin and breaking them apart is not the same as printing 5 trillion more dollars.
so why does it still take me 3+ business days to move money between banks? I assume it's just because they use that float to make money, but it still sucks. i for one like transactions clearing in a few seconds rather than a few days.
In fact what parent is saying is that fast transaction speeds are not something that are solely enabled by bitcoin. There is absolutely no technical reason why transfers have to take days between banks. That's just down to the banks in your country having a crappy infrastructure.
In fact, among the interesting properties of Bitcoin, I'd rate transaction speeds as the least relevant - chiefly because network throughput and transaction speed is actually pretty poor if you compare it to what is achievable with classical tech.
> There is absolutely no technical reason why transfers have to take days between banks. That's just down to the banks in your country having a crappy infrastructure
This is one of the reasons crypto is a great solution though. You don't have to rely on institutions for the infrastructure.
> There is absolutely no technical reason why transfers have to take days between banks. That's just down to the banks in your country having a crappy infrastructure.
I agree that there's no technical reason. For example, "crappy infrastructure" is an economic reason why fast bank transfers wouldn't work. I'm evaluating bitcoin as a political/economic tool.
That's not really a unique value proposition, as there are PayPal (and probably others) for many years already. And PayPal is free for private transfers, compared to BitCoin's ~$5/transaction.
>I don't see why someone should work full time and still end up poor.
no offense, but this assumes too much about a person. you could make minimum wage $100 an hour, and there will still be poor people because some people make bad decisions. (not even taking into account that that would cause massive inflation etc). just giving a person $100 an hour doesn't guarantee they won't end up poor, as evidence by all the professional athletes that made millions and ended up bankrupt
another note, your link above gives massively different outcomes based on life situations (1 adult, 2 adult, 0-3+ kids etc). Do we need to make minimum wage such that it works for 1 adult with 5 kids who somehow got there with no skills whatsoever such that they are still working for minimum wage? Some people make poor choices in life, and we can't just raise minimum wage to a point that makes up for that. It's simply not possible.
Now, we can talk about other safety nets, such as a universal basic income, and universal healthcare, etc which I'm 100% for. The gov't should help these people, they shouldn't force small businesses to pay people more than the value they bring to the business. This is just picking winners, amazon will get bigger, and small businesses will get killed. Let the free market decide how much people are worth in the market to a business, and let gov't help keep people out of poverty.
they can afford to operate. workers have agreed to do the job for the price set today. you want to raise that number arbitrarily, which they can't afford.
This thread is very specifically about how Amazon workers have agreed to do the job for a certain price, and how Amazon is trying to stop that process from proceeding. Even by your own perception of the situation, Amazon is in the wrong.
People being able to feed and house themselves and their children is arbitrary?
That “agreement” to work for the current price is compelled by the threat of hunger and homelessness. It is not a fair and free agreement when one party has all of the power.
The very very very very least a company could do is pay all of their workers a living wage.
the counter point is that minimum wage is artificial. if you aren't actually providing that much value, businesses will just cut the job altogether. if you are trying to raise a large family on minimum wage, well then that's obviously a big problem, but it's highly likely to be a problem you created with your life choices.
on the other hand, if you are in high school or college, minimum wage is likely fine as it's just extra spending money. raising minimum wage significantly more than likely just kills these jobs in favor of a kiosk that can do the job just as well.
if we want to make it so that everyone can live, that is a job for gov't with things like universal healthcare, universal basic income, social safety nets. forcing businesses to pay people more for a job than the job creates in value is not a solution. in the long term those jobs will just go away completely to a technology solution.
give people a safety net so that they can not be in poverty, but don't force businesses to pay more than the market says a job is worth. kind of a silly argument on a post about amazon anyways, since they pay well above minimum wage, and in fact have campaigned on raising it (not out of the goodness of their hearts mind you, they want to put small competitors out of business and they know they can't afford a large min wage hike like amazon can)
> if you are trying to raise a large family on minimum wage, well then that's obviously a big problem, but it's highly likely to be a problem you created with your life choices.
This is true, but becoming less and less true. Today there are all sorts of jobs that used to provide a living wage, that don't anymore. With no college and limited training, you could hire on at an assembly plant and make enough to support yourself. These types of jobs are getting scarcer and scarcer.
It's not always bad life choices. Sometimes it's choices life has made for you. Meaning: you were born in the wrong ZIP code, with the wrong parent(s), and sent to the wrong school. Choices other people made for you, rather than decisions you took the wrong path on.
> on the other hand, if you are in high school or college, minimum wage is likely fine as it's just extra spending money. raising minimum wage significantly more than likely just kills these jobs in favor of a kiosk that can do the job just as well.
This is a really hard aspect to design for. I agree that we can't require that all jobs pay enough to support a single earner's ability to rent an apartment, feed themselves, pay for a car, auto insurance, healthcare, etc. If that were the case, I would never have found work in my teens and early 20s.
> if we want to make it so that everyone can live, that is a job for gov't with things like universal healthcare, universal basic income, social safety nets. forcing businesses to pay people more for a job than the job creates in value is not a solution. in the long term those jobs will just go away completely to a technology solution.
I could not agree more. The labor market become so much freer when these things are taken out of the employment equation. My employer should not be anywhere near my healthcare. The way we allowed ourselves to tie those 2 things together is one of the greatest drags on our economy, and for labor mobility and opportunity.
If we had a UBI along with healthcare, I could see minimum wage being thrown out altogether. Employers would offer what the job is worth, and workers would work for what they value their own time at.
>This is true, but becoming less and less true. Today there are all sorts of jobs that used to provide a living wage, that don't anymore. With no college and limited training, you could hire on at an assembly plant and make enough to support yourself. These types of jobs are getting scarcer and scarcer.
raising minimum wage makes this worse, not better. even more jobs will be automated by technology removing even more unskilled labor jobs
>This is a really hard aspect to design for. I agree that we can't require that all jobs pay enough to support a single earner's ability to rent an apartment, feed themselves, pay for a car, auto insurance, healthcare, etc. If that were the case, I would never have found work in my teens and early 20s.
yup
>I could not agree more. The labor market become so much freer when these things are taken out of the employment equation. My employer should not be anywhere near my healthcare. The way we allowed ourselves to tie those 2 things together is one of the greatest drags on our economy, and for labor mobility and opportunity. If we had a UBI along with healthcare, I could see minimum wage being thrown out altogether. Employers would offer what the job is worth, and workers would work for what they value their own time at.
probably because it's the most profitable platform. iOS easily makes more money than Android even though it has less users. In my experience, it's not close.
