Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more tim333's commentslogin

The easy gold ran out. AI will keep developing.

Crypto is more a casino thing on the side that doesn't effect the real economy much.

They were working on adapting GPUs for machine learning back in 2005. The getting lucky with AI was preceded by a lot of preparation.

That's not how it's mostly gone historically. People tend to find different jobs.

Those who work at call centers are already desperate for any job and have zero savings. I'm not sure where they will down even further. I guess the governments will have to pick them up at the end: give them some fictious jobs and pay the minimum out of taxes from the remaining populace who still have jobs.

Gambling.

You can do gambling easier without blockchains. (Not that you should do any gambling at all, on neither side, if you ask me.)

Not really, because the government freezes your bank account and takes your money.

>How anyone, especially many "intelligent" people, thought it was realistic to graft a currency on top...

However a currency was grafted on, is used by millions and has a $1.7tn market cap. Seems real.


The currency is absolutely not used by anyone serious as currency. Market caps are, quite obviously, representative of nothing, given the current state of the S&P. Let’s be serious.

I used it to buy some airtime on my phone. Not a very good currency maybe.

From travelling to different places I'm not sure about the women's work was brutal bit. The ones not in paid work tend to spend their time looking after the kids and cooking and cleaning and stuff regardless of the style of living. The main thing that's hard seems to be the kids going "mum! I want..."/"don't want to..." at all hours but that's human nature which doesn't change much.

That's because you haven't done that work and don't value it.

Women in agrarian societies do difficult manual labor like hauling water, milking, preserving food, tending livestock, laundry. Laundry before machines was backbreaking work nobody wanted to do, which is why the poor did it or women took in laundry if they needed money. If you had a hand free, you spun wool.

Also, they did all that while constantly pregnant or nursing, which is really hard on the body. Sure, women didn't have to go to war, but men didn't have to live with the fear that this year's baby might be the one that finally kills them.


The study doesn't seem to try to distinguish cause and effect. It may be that people who feel better are more likely to go for coffee. That issue comes up quite often in alcohol studies - if you plot alcohol consumption against health the people who drink quite a lot are amongst the healthiest but the effect there is pretty much that drinking is fun but you have to be healthy to take it.

Sure but wont alcohole have a more obvious "I don't feel well maybe I should not drink too much" effect?

And care takers when you are really bad will hand you coffee but not beer. Etc.


What do you mean people that drink a lot are the healthiest.

It just tends to come out that way. Not the very healthiest but in my case for example I drank quite a lot in my 20s/30s when I was fit. Now I can't drink much and am not in as good a health (60s).

Ireland mostly managed to kick out the British.

Maybe not scarce in an absolute sense but what about whether there is a spare million tons lying around to make ship batteries?

What's more scarce is the factory capacity to build the batteries, and the scale of their supply chains. But even that is expanding by 10x every five years. We are currently building more than a TWh per year of batteries.

If there is demand for batteries in ships, it is going to be far smaller than for cars, which is currently 80% of battery demand (the rest is mostly grid storage). So ship batteries will at most slow the fall of battery pricing by a small amount.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: