I completely agree with this. Why would the average Joe trust the chain you describe more than a Corporation with a physical address and humans to interact with?
What are your thoughts on stuff like the many blockchain real estate related projects? e.g. "tokenized real estate" "100% liquidity" etc etc.
I'm not aware of the blockchain real estate stuff. But my guess from your description is just to transform real estate into an ETF? Then you could do that without a blockchain in the first place.
I discovered scooters recently and have rode them in three major cities during the past month. I have to say it is the most genius consumer tech product I've seen in a long time. I instantly felt a sense of "wow" after riding the first one (bird). The entire experience is so simple, so elegant (ui/ux), cheap, efficient, and most importantly FUN. I looked up bird and lime to discover they'd each received over 400M in funding and it makes perfect sense to me. This is a disruptive technology that's going to see major adoption in every city across the entire planet. You have to ride one to understand, especially in an urban, downtown, waterfront or metro type area. They're going to easily cut into bikeshare and short-trip rideshare services. Take a ride and you'll see, #scootlife!
Also worth noting, none of the technology is itself "new", but rather bird & lime particularly have packaged existing technologies together to make a product with all the qualities mentioned above. Innovation is usually just a twist on something that's already out there.
> This is a disruptive technology that's going to see major adoption in every city across the entire planet.
Disruptive pioneer is not necessarily good investment even if the base idea is solid.
In the Dot-com bubble (1995-2000) many companies with good ideas eventually failed. There were several online book retailers, web search companies and online shopping sites, even online food delivery services. They were highly valued, but most of them went bankrupt. Amazon two Google survived (It took over decade for Amazon's stock valuation to recover).
We have now transportation boom. When the boom goes bust and regression hits, most run out of money and go bankrupt.
Holy crap. You ride on one of those standing electric scooters for at least 37 minutes each way?! (20 mph) That's a long time... I could understanding biking but not stand up scootering.
How do you reason such? Most if not all of the illicit fentanyl comes from China, where it is an uncontrolled substance. IMO this should definitely be part of a comprehensive conversation.
I assume the parent comment's reasoning is, roughly:
The War on Drugs was, from one point of view, essentially a soft invasion of central and south American countries; we sent DEA and military "advisors" to burn the crops of farmers while the CIA treated narcos like Soviets.
Indisputable that, eg, yes mexican farmers were growing kush (or making coke, etc) at the behest of powerful cartels. They were totally doing that.
It did not spend as much effort on why and how drugs became what they are in our own country; laws had disproportionate impacts on some communities; treatment was the refuge of the privileged. Slaking the need for drugs is more than border enforcement, from this perspective.
So yeah, some dope comes from point A to point B, so stop it from making it to point B, but also look at what's going on at point B to fix the problems that aren't trafficking.
Indeed. The War on Drugs is the kind of solution America likes, because it's a war; and as a side benefit the CIA gets to mess with the soverignty of various small countries. Effectiveness for actually helping the victims was never part of the point. If they didn't die they could be jailed and used as forced labour.
that's why I said "part" of a conversation. If it's known that China (or any nation) is actively working against our citizens interests, it certainly makes sense to include in any conversations relating to foreign affairs with that country. Does that benefit people addicted to drugs in America? No. But it may benefit people who could *potentially be addicted in the future.
Most of the illict guns causing Mexico's enourmous murder rate come from America, where they are an uncontrolled substance. Therefore America should ban guns? (/s)
Fundamentally it's America's problem. A Chinese crackdown might impair it a bit, but this approach didn't work for Latin America-supplied drugs, and it didn't work for weed, so why do people expect it to work now?
No, the real solution involves getting to the people at risk and helping them. Which is something so completely out of character for the US political system.
The problem here is the initial opioid crisis hardly involved China at all. Instead it largely involved US pharmaceutical companies like Purdue Pharma's over-aggressive promotion of Oxycontin. China and fentanyl only came into the picture later.
Fentanyl is a significant issue and discussing what China intends to do about fentanyl certainly is warranted (seems like discussions are underway to schedule it in China -- https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/fentanyl-us-china-g2... ). But one compound isn't the full problem here.
Why do people care which framework "blows" the other one away? In my opinion, it literally doesn't matter at all and arguing over such things seems amateur.
I mean, I could technically dig a hole in the ground with a spoon...it would get the job done, after all...or I could use a shovel or a back hoe. All three are capable of digging holes. Discussing which tools work best is an important question in software development. After all, the tools you choose can be force multipliers in your overall productivity as a team or organization.
No, because the cost of switching between the two is roughly zero. If switching took 6 months and $100K there would be lots of articles in the hole digging community about when and why to pick between the two.
I agree. The use of "Blowing away" in the title is incendiary and unnecessary.
It would be far better to state the metric they're using, i.e. "GitHub Stars !== Usage: React downloads still surpass Vue and Angular"
It's taken React about 2-3 years to go from being head to head with Angular(JS) to being the dominant frontend ecosystem. I expect within 2-3 years Vue and React will be on far more equal footing in terms of usage and jobs. (Assuming something else doesn't come along and topple the current trend towards reactive frontend tools.)
> I expect within 2-3 years Vue and React will be on far more equal footing in terms of usage and jobs.
I don't think this is true, primarily because of the number of large companies getting behind React and contributing to the ecosystem. Also, the difference between Angular and React is much larger (IMO) than the difference between React and Vue, which means there is less incentive to move to Vue if you already know React because the latter is Good Enough™.
On the other end, Vue is a natural move for companies looking to move off of jQuery and AngularJS but afraid or unwilling to make the move to React, and I suspect there are an order of magnitude more companies in this category than companies that have already adopted React.
I think you are right about the volume of companies in that category, though I think you are underestimating the network effect of a library with as much momentum as React. The libraries are similar enough that, for many (most?) projects, it makes more sense to use the more popular one.
> Why do people care which framework "blows" the other one away?
I suppose two factors:
- The scale/"startups = growth" tenet of Silicon Valley/Wall Street trickling down to micro business decisions — pick as many of (whatever is most popular | comes from Massively Scaled Company | used by companies trying to Massively Scale | growing in popularity fast) as possible
- Feedback loop of bosses/managers who make technical decisions based on hirability/availability of paid long-term technical support/brand name (In 2018, nobody ever gets fired for choosing whatever is the equivalent of IBM now)
That's the problem: there are so many tools/frameworks/libraries etc. with so much overlap that people don't know what tool is for what job anymore. And there might not be a real answer to that. When you have a situation like this, people tend to use proxy measures like github stars to figure out what tool to use. Sure, it might not be the right tool, but it's at least picking a tool, as opposed to being locked in constant confusion about which path to take. Sometimes the right tool is the tool you have.
I don't strictly disagree, but it is worth considering for anything other than hobby projects what is the mid to long life expectancy of the stack you are relying on.
An unmaintained lib might not become a problem or it could become a major obstacle down the line. It's a gamble.
Look, my basic point is that we're not alone, rather nobody wants to talk to us because we're terrifying ravenous monsters.
> but how do you know it exists if you've never been there? who told you?
I can't tell you that in a public forum. And again, even if I could I wouldn't. Either you don't believe me in which case what's the point? Or, worse, you do believe me and want to go there.
I'm not interested in helping anyone talk to aliens, it's just frustrating to me personally whenever the subject of the Fermi Paradox comes up because it's such a foolish question.
The critical issue people are dealing with whether it's UFOs, reptilians, crop circles, bigfoot, pyramid power, crystals, etc... it's all one thing: where is the edge of consensus reality?
To me, the important thing is this: if we don't learn to live in harmony with Nature, and damn quickly, we're going to crash our world civilization.
We don't need aliens to fix our shit. We have the technology and the understanding, it's really down to our fundamental nature: do we wake up and course-correct fast enough or will the oceans rise and wipe us out, leaving a world-wide desert and tropical regions at the poles?
I agree it's foolish conjecture and I believe we are certainly not "alone". I had an experience when I was 10 that infused fear and curiosity in me.
I'd like to say I am hopeful about our future but we are just evolved organisms from a long chain of creatures designed to compete for survival... it's in our own nature to self-destruct.
That's actually a great idea in my opinion, not sure why you were down voted. It seems that the incumbent large internet companies will easily be able to afford this burdensome regulation but new startups all the way through medium sized small businesses may struggle or even be suffocated by it. It would seem reasonable to have a tiered system where the penalties only kick in when the business has scaled.
Interesting, outside of the academic merits of the research, I wonder if they could partner with Blizzard (or other similar RTS game studios) and start shipping games with AI that is very difficult to beat? That would usher in a new era of solo and offline game play that could be very fun and challenging! Plus we'd be training Skynet, err, I mean the neural network in the process!
A 'perfectly' micro-ing AI is both boring to implement and boring to play against. Somebody made one for SC2 back when that was popular, take a look at these videos to see how uninteresting it would become after the first attempt.
yeah but I'm pretty sure these bots still get crushed by humans because of macro, planning and positioning, which is why it takes top firms on the planet so long to solve the problem
If the AI wasn't very smart, then you'd expect there to be some optimal path that would beat them. But Starcraft has always been a game with very little skill ceiling on micro. Well micro'd units have the potential overcome huge macro advantages. A famous real-world example would be Boxer's Immortal Marines:
My understanding is that a micromanagement-based AI is likely not to be an "interesting" difficult AI to beat. The DeepMind project is aimed more towards (with its apm caps) at building something that makes good decisions (e.g., unit composition, build orders, crisis management) instead of relying on brute force optimal control of units. While it is likely possible to completely break the balance of the game with perfect unit control, playing against such an AI (which is really just a bot at this point) would get stale pretty quickly.
Just like playing against MarineKing would get stale quickly for most players :P
The problem with starcraft is that its like chess - for a lot of players it really DOES get stale pretty quickly, with only one or two interesting moments in a game (assuming no early blunders). The games that are interesting involve near perfect play for 10-20 minutes and then frequently one split second decision. Macro changes or new strategies are quickly picked up and interated on, and I think thats what the hardcore still stick around for
The difference is that an interesting AI could likely be scaled back meaningfully for lower skill levels. Make MarineKing play with only the mouse against a lower skilled opponent? The results might be less stale.
Rate limiting a brute-force AI would make it trivially bad.
Not really. Stopping MarineKing from sending tons of APM is only part of the challenge. His choices for what to do in any given frame (yes, frame) are also just better than basically every player on the ladder. If you remove his keyboard, you'll find that he still wins most games against folks who don't know the game.
What are your thoughts on stuff like the many blockchain real estate related projects? e.g. "tokenized real estate" "100% liquidity" etc etc.