I like this framing. I think there's a rebellious undertone to some of the aforementioned "worshippers" -- and at least as many are definitely there for the money-pump effect.
I've thought about this a lot because my less technical friends are often surprised when I tell them I am not "super into" BTC.
I wonder if it is because I am used to dealing with the fragility of digital systems (not to unfairly discount their strengths either) -- so then paper money almost feels like a relief to hold in my hand and just slap on the counter and smell that fresh legal tender.
I think it is also kind of a collectors' item. Like owning a piece of a rare set of baseball cards or cars.
There are definitely religious zealots out there but in terms of passive ownership -- it could be viewed as a scarce collectors item with theoretically infinite appreciation right?
For example, if a rare painting could not be effected by environmental degradation. Would it not appreciate forever until people stopped caring about paintings or suddenly rare paintings could be atomized into existence by a replicator?
I sold my BTC from 2011 in the (what felt "big" at the time) run-up end of 2017, before it crashed in 2018.
Me at the time: "nailed it. knew this was hype and surfed it beautifully. looking forward to never thinking about crypto again."
Me now: "blew it. didn't even realize what 'mainstream' could mean."
What this taught me is that hype can come in waves, and the next one might be bigger and the timing unknown.
This article is great because it outlines all the different reasons why the hype of crypto has kept growing. It has so much controversy, is pretty generic, and nobody can really make sense of it. So it just keeps getting bigger because it is driving everyone nuts until they either:
A) get it out of their system and move on because honestly, dollars work
B) get rich off it and stop caring because they're rich now (probably converted a good amount to USD ;)
C) don't get rich off it but could have / wished they had and spend time hating it until something distracts them towards a healthier life
D) use it for practical purposes (aka crime) and then eventually get caught and have to wait out a sentence until they can get back in
In my opinion, it is the very fact that it has defied so many predictions (while confirming others) that both explains its persistence, and leads to the author wanting to encore his prior post in the context of the _current_ wave of crypto hype.
To clarify the use of the term "rebalancing" here for people who are familiar with Kafka's terminology: this is (I believe) referring to partition _storage_ rebalancing (redistribution of topics replicated across brokers). It is _not_ referring to Kafka's notion of rebalancing across a consumer group subscribed to a set of topic partitions.
The specific concern here is the possibility that Kafka's ISR strategy can potentially result in a corrupt leader partition and truncate messages to recover from a broker machine failure. The unclean leader election configuration setting for Kafka brokers is relevant here.
Also "better" is subjective depending on your configuration, requirements, and storage backends.
I wrote the article because I find the manner in which humans alter their reality to be fascinating and I wanted to create a basis for a discussion. Thanks to you and others, I am achieving that goal. As far as the reaction goes, I do not consider any one reaction "better" or "worse", they are all different and interesting to me.
The "strawman" example was actually just a timely (today) inspiration for framing an idea I've held for a while; there are other examples of similar ilk. I just thought Tesla was a nice modern one because they accomplish things that are beyond the average person's sense of what is possible similiar to the great minds of the past.
The notion that someone who claims they are going to do something in the future is lying in the traditional sense-- is indeed horseshit. However, that was not the point of the example or the article.
The purpose of the article (and all examples) was to show that it is not possible to make provably true or false statements about the past and future.
The use of the terms "liar" and "lying" throughout the article are used in an attempt to show how the value judgements we associate with "lying" are somewhat generalized considering that Galileo and the like are obviously NOT liars, but were made out to be so at the time.
I felt it was necessary to examine this aspect of something that otherwise would be looked it in a purely logical (and therefore somewhat impractical) manner.
The purpose was not to call innovators liars. The purpose was to illustrate how the process of factual dispute and reconciliation of past events is the same as the process of the creation of new events (innovation).
A truly strawman example would disintegrate when debated in the context of the principles it was representing. Yet, the principle it represents in this case is that we must use our actions to make the statements about the future or the past reflect reality.
Tesla declaring their intention and then successfully turning the Model S into a self-steering car is a perfect example of just that.
Do I take it then that you have since read the rest of it? :)
That is too bad since the point of the article is actually in favor of the Musk, the Model S and innovators like Musk. The introductory example is a beginning of a very same "context" you speak of intended to set the stage for the point of the comparison.
You are correct that without the rest of the context of the article, no reasonable person would have cause to think about those things. Hence the writing of the article.
The "made up bullshit" you're referring to is actually a concept studied by man since 600 b.c. This article is merely an examination of its principles as applied to inventors such as Galileo and the like using Tesla as the present example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)
While it still may be of no interest to you, I would venture to guess that perhaps the philosophy is of little interest to you; not so much the state of blogs whose topics may vary.
The author is me if that was not already evident, and I appreciate your criticisms regardless of their polarity.
I am thrilled that the first comment is a moral value judgement assignment to a way of looking at alternate realities without assigning moral value judgements :)
Glad you like it. The only main thing it really needs now is a better system for guessing more variations of what people name their dist files typically. Obviously that's what overrides are for but it would be nice not to have to override as many packages if the guessing system employs some more clever heuristics. More coming soon.
Even if it's not software, you should learn about the relevant tech (assuming there is some). You'll have an easier time hiring talent later, you'll need less upfront costs, and investors like co-founders who have a good understanding of the technical aspects of the business.
If it's tech, but rather material cost, then crowdfunding is a good bet AFTER you have locked down a good marketing plan and secured some early traction in the form signups / commitments.
You can do tests and "fake door" type experiments to get user signups, or even commitments from potential customers to further validate your understanding of the model and relevant addressable market.
Once you've gone through that testing and validation process, try building out a small MVP yourself, or use what traction you mustered to try and recruit an equity partner with the relevant experience / network / talent necessary (and/or go get some angel money).
The attitude of that letter is refreshingly positive and sensible. A nice change from the usual super-charged sexist attitudes one way or the other that usually only spark more polarized debate that loses sight of the bigger picture.
The thing that frustrated me the most about the PyCon thing was how the keynote was just completely eclipsed by the incident. Barely anyone reporting even had the consideration to mention what the keynote was about-- only that it was interrupted by a tweetsplosion.
Another way to fight spammers, would be to quietly shut off sending for their account, while still providing simulated email data to their dashboard, reporting successful sends, opens etc... That way, they would think they are still sending out spam and it would take them a while to realize that they had been cut off, slowing the cycle of them doubling their efforts.
I am more optimistic. While they could have done a better job disclaiming the early videos, I don't believe that they are dumb enough to make such exciting claims to an educated audience if they cannot deliver.
I have also seen the Intel depth camera in action first-hand and that alone is a very promising piece of hardware.