> "I have always done exactly what I wanted. Which is why I find myself on a shady facial recognition website looking for a bus driver I met when I was 14."
> Cost of living can only go up if people are willing to pay more.
, is the worst economic take i've heard in a while and I read the FT. CoL is primarily driven by supply and demand, not willingness to pay, not to mention inflation, supply chain issues, inelastcity...
The article emphasizes financial pressures on new couples due to rising living costs making lab-grown diamonds more appealing, and that's sad in my mind, it's sad that the cost of living prices people out from nice things, it's sad that people here are coping saying lab made are the same, which to me is like saying a veggie patty is the same as a beef and I'm a bad person for eating meat, that a knockoff purse is the same as the brand name because they are both leather; dematerialize and dissasociate from the world more why dont you, oh are you above consumerism and so romantic you could wear a string as a wedding band because its more about meaning. What's the point of any fashion then. Of any art if any paint will do. Gold is just metal too then.
Stabelcoins are\will be nothing more than glorified digital dollars\CBDCs, of which there are many already, that will proliferate USDs 'exorbitant privilege'.
The only real revolution in/for/from 'crypto' is BTCs double spend PoW solution/it's ability to be defi p2p cash for 15+ years and running.
I'm not excusing nor rationalizing prices and the economics, obviously they hoard and manupulate the rates. Can't argue with how dark that crap must be. All I'm saying is real diamonds are 'better' and everyone knows it. Humans are emotional and that's a good thing. The manipulation of it is the bad thing. Trying to deny yourself of your emotions like a monk and yet still wishing for the iconic symbolic significance having 3month salary storybook ring, what are we doing here. Pay more for the real thing because life is real.
Many of the variables listed (money supply growth, banking dynamics, government deficits, and velocity) depend on confidence in the underlying fiat currency.
With stuff like r/LLMPhysics already proving how futile AI is at doing science, I cannot wait untill these tech-bros start vibe-sociologying and slide into megahitler territory.
I'm still conflicted about this. I understand the cost and blood diamond debate and largely agree. But there is something about diamonds that makes them divine: carbon atoms crystallizing and bonding over millions to billions of years to form structures, rated on a scale of color, clarity, cut, and weight. It's like gold, primarily forged in cosmic events like supernova explosions. Naaaaah let's just make it in a lab it looks the same.
People are being priced out of art and beauty and it's a shame economics and corruption make real diamonds dirty.
Like all text, even this, written in an authoritarian/strongheaded/textbook way, people believe. They believe textbooks, the news, political reasonings, company mission statements, and federal reserve policies. Turtles all the way down.
Humans search for certainty and authority. LLLMs are so 'confident' in their answers. The truth/reason issue is not unque to AI - look at those who wide up in cults.
Coding aside, their not made for theraputics, they're predictive, and as a scientist who damn well wishes it could DO science FOR ME (would make my job easier), it cant, i tried, it cannot create anything new, it cannot reason from first principles, its a glorifed spell checker that summarizes articles reall well for me.
I put your AI written-in-Markdown article into AI and asked it to respond critically. TLDR; LLMs cannot do science.
The concept of "Computational Thermoepistemics" ambitiously seeks to unify computation, thermodynamics, and information theory into a single theoretical framework claiming to reveal fundamental energy limits of AI and intelligence. While its interdisciplinary ambition is commendable, the framework overreaches by treating computational processes too literally as thermodynamic microstates with physical quantities like pressure and chemical potential, which lack rigorous empirical grounding in current computing technologies. The core claims about logical depth and undecidability bounding thermodynamic efficiency conflate abstract computability theory with physical energy costs in a way that oversimplifies highly distinct domains. Moreover, practical quantum advantages are currently limited by error correction and decoherence costs rather than fundamental thermodynamic laws, so the paper’s distinctions are mostly theoretical, not yet substantiated by experimental evidence. Biological efficiency comparisons often ignore the vastly different operational scales and purposes between brains and silicon AI. Finally, while energy-aware algorithm-hardware co-design and reversible computing are promising research paths, the lofty promises that energy efficiency gains could approach biological levels or exploit deep thermodynamic parallels remain speculative. Overall, the framework presents an intriguing synthesis but lacks conclusive validation, so it should be seen as a stimulating hypothesis rather than an established theory reshaping AI energy paradigms.
The author misses the crucial final stretch of tying all that logic concretely into Bitcoin; indispensable through infrastructure and habit. The tulip bubble (Holland 1634-1637) didn't get the fastest-growing ETF in history in year 15.