But what are the chances of the housing demand evaporating?
In most cities where the housing bubble exists, it exists for a reason.
The city is growing because all jobs are relocating to cities and universities located within these cities have growing student populations.
The demand is considered very stable so the risk of that happening is quite low.
And before anyone says it, I don't think we are going to experience a remote work revolution any time soon.
The reason the school employed a bunch of bleeding heart liberals is so the future politicians and thought leaders amongst those kids can later pretend they had a progressive upbringing.
I would not be surprised if the school hires professional photographers and takes kids on school excursions to protests to take photo shoots. In the future all politicians will have photos of them at the Friday climate school strike and the BLM protests.
The whole situation is analogous to the chivalry code of conducts that knights had.
And btw the teachers are in on the whole thing. They aren't stupid either. They know what role they are playing in this game.
It depends on the culture. I also live in western Europe and in my community even the literally illiterate shepherds that I grew up amongst, have their money in stocks and bonds or intermediary funds.
I understand your reasoning with regards to inflation. But what makes you so sure Bitcoin will keep going up?
Yes it has gone up over the last 10 years. But 10 years is a relatively short time, and moreover this was a period during which all assets went up. I don't think one can really extrapolate from that alone that Bitcoin will just keep going up forever.
And how do you explain away the various risks? Governments could theoretically hurt the price if they decided to pass more regulation that made interacting with an exchange harder. Or if they tried to close the exchanges altogether. And we are talking here about worldwide governments. I am not very worried the US would do something like that since they have mostly shown support towards cryptotech. But China or Russia or India or the EU might. And the other big worry is the lack of transparency. The exchanges are hardly as trustworthy as the NASDAQ or the NYSE. One cannot tell what sort of plays they are making to manipulate the price.
And then there's the risk of speculation itself. The price is not determined by anything more fundamental than user sentiment. There is no constant stable demand or anything.
User sentiment can be manipulated (by government regulations for example) or a big scare might happen organically. There is also the risk from competing cryptoassets. And risks from infighting between Bitcoin developers and miners as is happening right now with Ethereum.
Now of course all investments have risks so this alone is not a reason to not put money in Bitcoin. But I just have not yet seen a rigorous examination of all the risks.
if hypothetically one could ban cars from cities and only allow such low powered transport, it would be quite an efficient safe and clean form of transport
The fact that nobody can simply say, "here is what Bitcoin does, this is why the energy consumption is justified" is a strong indictment against the supposed value that Bitcoin brings.
But, there is no legal mechanism that measures the utility of commercial activities, and which dictates that energy should be consumed only by enterprises that have a certain utility. This is unprecedented territory.
Depends on what you mean by self driving cars.
To me it is not even clear that driving assist tech will ever be advanced enough for cars to drive themselves reliably.*
But that aside.
Human in control + driving assists is already safer than fully manual driving.
The question is whether the opposite is even safer. It is obvious to me that
self driving with the human as backup is a joke. Humans cannot react fast enough in real emergencies.
So if you want the car to mostly drive itself, it has to actually always drive itself.
And to me it is not clear whether this is really going to be safer than the human+driving_assist scenario.
*Of course I am talking about tech based on the current DL approaches. If we had AGI, then the question does not even need to be asked.
So now the developing world will start using their energy to mine BTC instead of manufacturing goods for us to consume.
Will this ultimately cause inflation then? Because demand for goods will not be met?
This crypto experiment keeps yielding more interesting results.
There was no grand conspiracy and no master architects of chaos. It was simply a meme that got out of hand.
It started out as a sentiment, a set of ideas that I would call liberal chauvinism. Then anti-immigration got on board. Then the Tories tried to win the anti-immigration folk back, but instead got swallowed by the BREXIT movement, along with a big chunk of Labour.
Scientific computing is not done in python. It is usually Fortran on C/C++ or Matlab (which I think uses Fortran libraries behind the scenes).
Python is only used for the data manipulation part but not for the core simulation.
I'm a math grad student studying numerics and scientific computing actually.
But I do not see a future in it as it does not seem to pay well and the relevant jobs are scarce. So it seems risky to get into it as a career when I can pivot to a more profitable SWE role or do something with ML.
Is scientific computing getting some revival with the advent of quantum computers?
From what I could see the niche is relatively small and not well paid, with most jobs somehow tied to the public sector.
Not sure how Julia factors into all of this. I don't think the programming language makes that big of a difference, ultimately.
Very interesting field at the intersection of all my skills, but I'm hesitant to get into it.
What you care for is immaterial.
The goal of mitigating climate change is not to create a better world for you, but to provide a future for humanity.
Thus, informed by such a goal it makes little sense to replace future generations with pets.
It is also true of incomes which is mostly what I was talking about. Women strongly prefer men with higher earning potential than themselves, and this preference increases as financial incomes of women increase.[1]
A society where women cannot find husbands with higher earning potentials would create a marriage crisis.
Women have different incentives. Having a career is not really necessary and the reasons to have one are different.
Us men need to compete with each other to be the best providers. Women just need to pick one of us, and then their goal is to retain that man in their lives. Having a career does not factor much into that. Especially having a high stress career would maybe even hurt such goals.
Some men and some women get so caught up spinning the hamster wheel, that they loose track of why they are spinning the wheel in the first place. But most of us in general are aware of the reasons.
This won't sound very PC, but despite all the bullshit about equality, men need to be better than women.
Women demand that men are better than women.
If we are going to end up with a situation where women have higher income potentials than men, nobody will be happy.
Women will feel like they cannot find anyone suitable and men will feel like they are inadequate.
The demand is considered very stable so the risk of that happening is quite low.
And before anyone says it, I don't think we are going to experience a remote work revolution any time soon.