21–30 of 48 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethereum is 14 Mt CO2 annually or more, which is a disaster for what we got in return (ransomware), but at least they are moving to proof of stake.
> which is a disaster for what we got in return (ransomware) Right, that's all "we" got for it… "nothing" besides ransomware and easier ways to pinpoint CO2 compared existing systems it seeks to obsolete…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which is a disaster for what we got in return (ransomware) Right, that's all "we" got for it… "nothing" besides ransomware and easier ways to pinpoint CO2 compared existing systems it seeks to obsolete…
The existing systems are much more efficient. I do think it is good they are moving to proof of stake.
If you ignore the costs of the trust issues between participants (as well as a lot of physical infrastructure apart of trust chains) and how that plays out through the entire system, and a lot harder to trace CO2 values on (esp those that people will all agree on).
Here's one persons take on this with Banks vs BTC wrt CO2[0] with their numbers from last year that I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with in one form or another (usually without numbers of their own).
[0] https://medium.com/@mukeat/carbon-footprint-differences-btc-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way he got the citizenship doesn't disprove the idea that he wanted it "as a hedge against the looming apocalypse".
It also doesn't disprove the idea that he wanted it to host sex parties in NZ for people that are exactly 6 feet 3 inches tall and have green eyes. Both are equally made up "reasons" for Thiel getting NZ citizenship. BTW: what kind of apocalypse exactly does one hedge against with NZ citizenship? A zombie apocalypse where zombies don't like New Zealand?
We also have looming ecosystem collapse, or cascading problems in spercific ecosystems (pests and plagues) that NZ might be partially sheltered from.
Absolutely ridiculous characterization of "unregulated, free-market capitalism" and libertarianism in general. The logical fallacies, in particular the non sequiturs linking Thiel's decisions to some imagined definition of "free market capitalism" that allows for abusive expropriations of private property to expend on wasteful security state initiatives, is particularly egregious seeing as how the author is intelligent enough to be aware of them.
This is pure bad faith ideologically motivated sophistry.
Free market capitalism simply means markets free of prohibitions on mutually voluntary interactions, including interactions that involve the exchange of money (gasp!). If you want to claim that interactions between parties with different wealth levels are inherently non-voluntary because of power/information asymmetries or some other superficially plausible but ultimately cockamanie ideological talking point, fine we can have that debate, but don't mislead the public about the plain definition of free market capitalism.
Oh and free market capitalism is not unregulated. There are foundational regulations, encapsulated in common law and that the statutes that codify it, against fraud, assault and any other violation of others' human rights. Under this governance doctrine, the courts are the parties who determine what constitutes a breach of anothers' rights, as they are the only body capable of engaging in the impartial deliberation required to do so effectively.
What stood out for me was the assessments of Peter Thiel's involvement in politics by Steve Bannon and the author of this piece. They both seem way off in those assessments to me, given both the success of Palantir and Anduril and his ongoing ties to the conservative establishment - e.g. his recent appearance at The Nixon Seminar ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVOHakxXbMw )
[emphasis mine]
Surely the success of Palantir is a data point in favor of the thesis of the piece?
Further reading:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/indepth/national/how-peter-thiel-...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/88745476/peter-thiel-is-a-n...
https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citizenship-rel...
https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Peter-Thiel-rel...
https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Peter-Thiel-rel...
Whats interesting is that people often mention that he secretly funded a lawsuit against some low quality news website, yet in his letter to NZ asking for citizenship he stated his Founders Fund is the primary supporter of an organisation called the Committee to Protect Journalists, "a non-profit group that prmotes press freedom and defending of the rights of journalists "to report news without fear of reprisals".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they trying to persuade? I figure they were just trying to signal their "loyalty" to some audience they have in mind. I found this hilarious: "The Thiel Fellowships, which began in 2011, initially provided $100,000 each to 22 high school students with big ideas for changing the world… Unsurprisingly, these dreams came to nothing." Because of [0]: "He dropped out of university in 2014 when he was awarded with a gr…
Ethereum is 14 Mt CO2 annually or more, which is a disaster for what we got in return (ransomware), but at least they are moving to proof of stake.
What stood out for me was the assessments of Peter Thiel's involvement in politics by Steve Bannon and the author of this piece. They both seem way off in those assessments to me, given both the success of Palantir and Anduril and his ongoing ties to the conservative establishment - e.g. his recent appearance at The Nixon Seminar ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVOHakxXbMw )
> As a political disrupter, Thiel was a flop. Steve Bannon considered him too flaky for the serious graft of government, which is saying something. But this wasn’t really the game Thiel was in. Mainly it was just for show. What he wanted was to get close to government contracts. [emphasis mine] Surely the success of Palantir is a data point in favor of the thesis of the piece?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the main thrust of the article is that Peter Thiel's libertarianism is hugely unprincipled and inconsistent with itself. which might describe of lot of the more famous libertarians out there actually...
Well of course. Having a billion dollars is like having a dozen children: something is deeply wrong with you.
You mean being a billionaire is like making up for ~5 childless couples not contributing to the next generation? Could be!