What else is interesting is that if you are willing to migrate to a tablet based workflow then you can get tools very, very close to par with the Adobe suite for less than $100 - and that's a one time buy, not a subscription. If you're not married to open source, of course.
Spend another hundred or so on an Apple pencil and some font licenses and you are flying.
Do you expect a once in a decade (and by some measurements, once in a lifetime) crash to happen twice in the same year, or several years from now? I don't doubt there will be a second wave - the US is by most accounts still mired in the first wave, but I suspect most people probably missed the boat on the "bottoming out" event. Stranger stuff has happened though. Interesting take.
It depends on if it can be considered one drop or two, and who decides. If you look at many of the stock crashes. There is an initial drop, followed by a recovery, and then a further drop.
This recovery seems strangely stable (to me) but from what I understand there has never been a government who has pumped this much money into the market in order to maintain the highs.
One thing to consider which I heard the other day. [paraphrasing] "Invest in the market in front of you, not the one you think should be." There are so many people saying "well the market would be lower if the fed hadn't printed so much money, etc etc" but you can't invest in the market where they didn't, so you have to look at where you are, what you think will happen and go from there.
Exactly this. And people doubting there could be a second wave are completely ignoring what happened with the Spanish Flu. Given how people are treating the current pandemic, I fully expect a repeat show of that historical period. So I'm preparing for that. And if it doesn't happen, ah well, at least the money I didn't sink into the market yet isn't lost - it's just stagnant for a few months.
I've been thinking about this "not lost - just stagnant" thing the last week, unfortunately, I don't think it's actually true. You are always losing or gaining depending on what you are comparing to. If the economy is measured by the market, then it costs you more to get in later, it's effectively the same as losing.
Sure, you may not be losing on purchasing power of staple goods, but on almost any scale where an investment is valuable, you are losing, unless you can get in at the net crash. Just a different perspective.
You might have noticed a whole lot of stocks dropped today. If I had my float money on some other stocks instead, they would have lost along with the rest. Instead, because it was liquid, I was able to buy at today's lows. Mainly today I bought more of some shares I already own because they were down a fair amount (bought pre-covid), and today's purchase made the loss a much smaller percent. Eventually the markets will rebound and I'll have a lot of money there and a much shorter route to green territory.
To avoid fees, I have to make 2 trades a quarter minimum. I consider those fees to be losses, even though they aren't terribly substantial. So there is also that incentive to keep a float and wait for good moments like today for buys. There's no reason to buy immediately just because I got paid today.
I'm not done for the day yet. But that's why I say stagnant and not lost. It's more than just the one-phrase simplification I originally posted, as I was just focusing on that one aspect of it.
H1N1 in 2009-10 is best estimated to have killed somewhere from 200k to over half a million people - without the widespread global mitigation measures we are witnessing today. So, hard to say now if it will be a death toll that hasn't been seen in a lifetime.
Have been following this library for years. Love it. Favourite projects were some personal desktop apps I did with it in Electron to mangle samples in cool ways for my own music projects.
I still cant bring myself to purchase a Lenovo product because of this, despite the generally favourable reviews I see on HN regarding the ThinkPads. Its just such a revolting decision to me to do that to a paying customer.
I may just put my money where my mouth is and start the break up with Google too, as painful as that will be. I just dont feel like I align with these fucking companies at all anymore.
SuperFish and other adwares were installed on Lenovos lower-grade laptops and Thinkpads. The X series and T series, the choice of most consumers who care enough to own a Thinkpad, were not affected by this issue[1]. While it's unacceptable for Lenovo to be doing this on ANY machine, I still feel confident that the company understands how consumers view the Thinkpad brand and how reluctant they are to do anything that might tarnish the brand for business and prosumer users.
I suppose the main snag will be pointers. The approach that worked for me was the holistic approach of using C as a way of controlling the machine's memory itself.
In my view, C really only makes sense in the context of manipulating data in and out of the heap and the stack. So once you're past basic syntax, I guess start there: the heap and the stack. When you grasp that, I feel like you can stand on solid fundamentals on how computers work going forward.
I've been dabbling recently, and as I've said before I'm quite put off by the limitations of Ethereum. As it stands now, it's main use case appears to be the development of new cryptocoins, perhaps voting applications..? And yet, every now and then you come across a nugget of true insight when working with the Ethereum protocol, for instance the gas payments to nodes to run code effectively should stop DDoS attacks since it would require vast sums of money to disrupt the network. It remains to be seen how valid this idea is in practice, but you could look at ideas like that and say, "Yeah, that seems like a step forward."
Anyways, if Ethereum really will become Web 3.0, then comparatively speaking I'd say we're not even in the 56k modem era yet.
Once there is a proper infrastructure for trusted Oracles, there will be lots of interesting applications: small group crowd funding, payment distribution from trusts,execution of wills.
While I would love for this to be a thing, most cryptocurrency enthusiasts seem to distrust anything and everyone. How would one develop an oracle trusted enough that it would be accurate while not being vulnerable to sudden betrayals? There are for example plenty of stories from Eve Online (closest example of a lawless/trustless universe) where a very trusted middleman suddenly changed behavior when the benefits became great enough.
Especially when a cryptocoin includes strong anonymity, betrayal has very low downside since no retribution would be possible. However even if such anonymity is not present, it may not be possible to get retribution if the entity on the other side is (for example) the mafia.
A blockchain can only process its own data, no external api call allowed. Unfortunately a lot of interesting applications require access to external data. Thats what oracle are for. They import external data into the blockchains, embedded in transactions. Yes it does undermine the security model of the blockchain, but they are some work arounds. For example, you can have several oracles, and you can decided to only accept data that was provided by a majority of oracles, thus rejecting outliers.
Uhh, with the risk of sounding "shilly", there is this token called chain link that is supposed to do just that, act as an oracle for data from the outside world.
With the risk of sounding "shilly", there is this token called chain link that is supposed to do just that, act as an oracle for data from the outside world.
Looks like people have already started buying the dip.
I've found the recent discussions around BTC and cryptocoins on this forum incredibly illuminating, from both the bulls and the bears.
I'm beginning to think perhaps there's no point in discussing the fundamental financial flaws of cryptos, or their lack of inherent value. I'm beginning to think their main utility in is meeting a human need that's existed since antiquity - the need to gamble.
As long as a solvent exchange remains, and another ready to come along when it fails, there will always be large numbers of folks entering the casino.
Perhaps the only thing that can stop it now is strict government regulation.
Most people here seem to be completely oblivious to the movement behind Bitcoin and what it means for the world as the antiquated financial systems are replaced with people in control of their own money. The fact that everyone is so fixated on price shows the lack of imagination and forward thinking about what is coming. You call it gambling, we call it being ahead of the curve when the rest of the world only wakes up. I've come to believe the HN crowd for the most part cannot comprehend what is about to happen to our financial, political and technological world. Entire industries are being revamped while the hackerpeneur is blinded by Bitcoin fog. You are correct, there is no point in telling a banker he is about to be unemployed.
Spend another hundred or so on an Apple pencil and some font licenses and you are flying.