Mostly a history lesson. The reality is fighters are missile trucks these days and the F-15 is a great missile truck with a dozen amraam. Drones and missiles are the future of conventional war with much of the battle happening in the electromagnetic spectrum.
I think the drone war is getting off the charts. 300,000 per month!?! [1] This will definitely have impacts in the coming decade both in war and terror/counter-terror applications.
I want missile trucks. That launch from submarines. Can carry AMRAAM, SLAM, JSOW, etc. Can land in the water and be recovered by the submarine and launched for more missile truck missions. I’d war-game this against super duper expensive jets, carriers, etc. Maybe even the subs can be autonomous and run off AI.
I believe that the minimum wage should be commensurate with the cost of living in a particular area. Similar to the military's Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Subsistence (BAS) which adapt according to one's location, the minimum wage could be adjusted to reflect the price of local housing and groceries within a 30-minute radius. By doing so, the implications of less desirable local policy decisions would be absorbed by the communities that adopt them.
At present, there is little motivation for change among those profiting from policies that favor commercial or stagnant development over residential expansion. Such policies often compel people to undertake long commutes or inhabit crowded apartments in order to work locally. If businesses had to raise their prices and consumers had to pay more as a result of these policies, communities might be incentivized to establish policies that enable local living.
If the minimum wage was adjusted to reflect local living costs, it could serve as a catalyst for policy change. It would offer a choice: adapt local policies to facilitate affordable living or bear the inconvenience of commuting to other areas for goods and services where wages are in line with living expenses.
Regulatory arbitrage in Web3 seems to be coming to and end. My assumption is
1) If your contract is upgradeable it isn’t decentralized. Might as well be hosting on EC2.
2) If a multi-sig runs your governance contract or treasury it isn’t decentralized. Might as well form an LLC or C corp.
3) From a more NatSec perspective, if a SEAL team or the FBI can reach a few people in your DAO and your project would shut down, you aren’t decentralized.
Which all seems good and as it should be, to stop people LARPing as decentralized to avoid regulations.
So "consumers" are always said to "pay" as companies "pass through" increased costs due to goods, regulations, etc., but that doesn't apply here to all the taxpayers who use banking and are subject to increased FDIC insurance costs? And taking underwater, low-interest debt on the books at face value costs taxpayers overtime through inflation even if we get "paid back with interest". Why don't private buyers want this debt? Because they'd rather have dollars to buy better paying debt which the taxpayers currently provide. The BTFP will rapidly grow over $25B and be used to recapitalize the banks at taxpayers expense.[1]. Someones got to pay for the unrealized losses if depositors won't take a haircut. [2]
So personally, I fundamentally disagree with the statement "no losses borne by the taxpayer," believe this is used to obfuscate the issue, and am sad to see our treasury play this game. But it is standard fare these days, especially when people think they are protecting us from a banking run and the next great depression. But my concern is these measures lead to more economic inequality, populism, and eventual political turmoil.
Most definitely. SVB had $3B+ of Circle’s deposits for USDC. Just covered dollar for dollar by the US Taxpayers. Can sell all those underwater bonds at face value while the taxpayers issue new bonds at 5%. Crypto just unbanked the banked with the help of the US Gov.
Confidence in property rights? Not sure what you are talking about. They just provided guaranteed non-negative returns on loans. Put your dollars in a safety deposit box if you want property rights. Depositors need to be able to accept a haircut for banking to function, that's why you get interest and don't pay the bank.
The part that annoys me the most is the idea that all the depositors are mom and pop small businesses or early stage startups.
I’ve heard it said that Circle and USDC have an amazing business model: create a coin, call it a dollar, and deposit real dollars in the bank for interest while customers hold the coin. You don’t even have to offer a percent for the deposit like a normal bank. You can then make a couple percent on billions.
With this bailout the US Government just backstopped the business model with no haircut for a total lack of risk management. But sure, punish all banks (and thus customers / taxpayers) since the costs will be spread to others. Protecting us from systemic risks always seems to create more systemic risk. I’m sure were done though, they are putting protections in place this time.
What I find most disingenuous in this whole saga is the conflating of small business payroll depositors with all depositors. Circle & USDC rely on the interest rate earned on the stablecoin deposits for their business and SVB was providing that with poor risk management. With a $3B deposit (or more since they likely moved money out and partially caused the collapse), Circle should have been doing additional risk management beyond SVB, not just collecting interest. Now taxpayers are supposed to cover that failure?
Disagree. Figma should be competing with Adobe on the open market and winning. Seeing them displace CC in the enterprise in ways Sketch never did. $2-3B would be an insane propellent to them. This deal is great for Adobe, Figma, Greylock, and others, but not consumers or the majority of Figma users in my opinion. Glad to see the antitrust resurgence in this country. The rollup play is going away. Adobe's leaders are going to have to get more creative to compete :)
I wonder if it’s TikTok vs ByteDance. From my friend at the former, they are growing rapidly and understaffed vs the teams in China which are bloated and looking for projects. Also seems like they may need to sever the corporate structure and tech architecture which may also reduce the need for headcount in China.
You miss a big piece. These cities all allow new office spaces and thereby new jobs, since that brings in tax revenue. They just don’t allow new housing, so people pay astronomical prices, commute from far away, or live with entire families sharing spaces designed for single people. For an area that claims to care about the environment and the welfare of immigrants, the lack of building is selfish, greedy, and immoral and one of my biggest disappointments about where I grew up. I’m glad to see this being fixed at the state level and state law superseding local law.
So glad to see this. Military IT has been atrocious. I viewed the Navy Marine Corp Internet (NMCI) as damn near treasonous levels of awful when I got out a decade ago and assumed little improvement with the way contracts are done and the entrenched vendors. Happy to see Google win this not just because I prefer the solution now to MS, but that some change is happening. I still can’t believe we spent $7T on the global war on terror and no one is asking questions.
In the F/A-18 we had a selector that you could set to "both" or "rear only" exactly for this type of scenario. Qualified NFO in the backseat, you want both, and I know people who's lives were saved crashing off the carrier. But for a ride along, "rear only" is definitely the correct setting. And I'm pretty sure this has happened before, remember stories from years ago.
If able, perhaps focus on your earning potential. We’ve had a forty-year run of asset price inflation relative to wage inflation. We may have hit the end of this period and will see a realignment with wages increasing at a faster pace than capital assets, similar to what happened in the 1970s. The Asset Economy is a somewhat dry but interesting book that presents a more academic take on the economic patterns of the last forty years.[1] The increase in unionization efforts, anti-trust, and the inability of the FED to manage inflation seem to point in this direction.
Otherwise, monopolies still seem strong for now with pricing power. Areas the government will print money to fund also seem like a decent bet: defense, climate, …? And you can try to maintain purchasing power with gold or crypto or real estate (in non-bubble areas). But we may be entering some challenging times for those with assets.
My biggest concern with that article is some of the assumptions, such as most the warheads will go after random army bases in unpopulated areas. I feel like that is a very “conventional” war attitude from an armchair tactician. My guess would be a strategy of annihilating all key US & EU population centers. Utterly destroy DC, NY, SF, LA, etc.
After spending a decade in the military, I saw a consistent theme of underestimating opponents and making plans on how we want them to act. War isn’t rational and never plays out how you want it to. The people trying to make nuclear war seem like a reasonable outcome terrify me, especially when they make assumptions about how the opponent would act that best aligns with what they want to happen.
I don’t get the “appeal to authority”? His analysis is some of the best I’ve read and seems to layout the two options the west has: nuclear war or cold war. I hope your outcome is correct, but that choice is really up to Putin. As a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and former fighter pilot, I’m amazed at the naive warmongering on social media. People who ignored twenty years of war in the middle east are now all in for WW3. A no-fly zone means US jets shooting down Russian jets (and possibly Ukrainian jets or we aren’t neutral). And when US jets are shot down what do we do? People want to use NATO ground forces. When a tactical nuke is used against them, what do we do? People want regime change in Russia, when they counter and assassinate our politicians, what do we do? If we want to stand up for our values and Putin doesn’t change course, the best we can hope for is cold war 2. Cut off economically from Russia and any other country (China) that supports them. This will bring economic hardship across the world but it is better than armageddon. Maybe Putin changes course, I hope to god so, but we only have two options to really escalate if he doesn’t: cold war or hot.
A few months ago I agreed with her entirely. Tether is an unbacked fraud and NFTs are being front-run [1, 2]. The mid-level marketing Ponzi vibe is crazy. The latency of applications on the blockchain is atrocious. But more recently after learning from and interacting with people building in the space my assessment changed. There is an interesting intersection between tech, communities, and economics. There exists a transparency in the open-source code of smart contracts that will disrupt the current gatekeepers like the internet did.
Certainly, there are problems, but some things will live beyond the crash that is coming and change things in ways no one can be sure of. The internet started in the 1960s and was opened up commercially in 1989.[3] It feels like we are somewhere between 1995 and 2000. The energy feels similar with people trying to shove old paradigms into a new world, vaporware companies, and insane investments. I don’t think we’ve seen the top and it will likely make the crash of 2001 look small by comparison. I may be wrong, but if I’m not, it still is early.