rkbabang

Every time I hear this argument I wonder, where do you draw the line? Curious to hear your thoughts. I don't draw lines. And who gave you the power to draw them? You do whatever you want to your body and let me do whatever I want to mine.

Funny now that they are on sale there isn't a lot of people asking which ones to buy now here lately. I bought more Bitcoin yesterday.

I was at a internal company conference last week (semiconductor industry) and attended a workshop on neural networks/AI. It blew me away both how much can be easily done and how little resources (silicon area/power consumption) you actually need to do it. I was under the impression that for AI to be useful you needed some serious GPU/matrix math horsepower or super wide and deep custom silicon neural nets that suck up power. The current research that was presented here shows that isn't necessarily the case. You can do a hell of a lot with a very little resources. The silicon neural nets can be simple and be relatively small. There are going to be small to medium sized low power consumption neural networks on all kinds of chips in the very near future. I was bullish on AI before, but now I think it is going to simply explode. This research/methodology was less than a year old. The products/advances of the next 10 years are going to simply dwarf what we've seen in the last 30. I'm not going to say anymore because even though much of this was done in partnership with a few different universities I'm not sure how much is proprietary to my company. Exciting stuff though.

Do you read conference call transcripts? What is your source? I usually receive emails with the transcripts from seekingalpha for the tickers for which I get alerts on. Come to think of it, I haven't received any lately. Hmm.

I haven't noticed anything different about seekingalpha. At least the way I use it it is the same. I have them email me articles about the tickers that I'm interested in. And I click on the articles I wish to read from their emails. So far they have never emailed me about an article behind a paywall. I don't know if they are only free for limited time and disappear later though. I don't usually go directly to their website to search.

You guys are playing the role of Cathy Newman to ScottHall's Jordan Peterson. So what your saying is that ScottHall thinks LC should clean his room?

This is a pretty awesome perspective. So if I'm getting what you're saying, it's totally okay for anyone who owns a construction company to burn down your house, since they will have created net positive houses in the world. It's okay for a woman who's had a bunch of kids to commit a few murders, since she's created a net positive for human life. Oh wait, I misunderstood. What you are actually saying is that there should be no consequences to someone burning down your house because there's a chance in the future that they might build more houses. I find it interesting you could have looked at these cases said, "These people broke the law and faced the consequences. Now we have to fix the system so that everyone faces the consequences, not just those who thumb their noses at power." Instead, you say, "These people broke the law but because they might contribute to the world, they should not face consequences." (In a way, that's the most left-wing suggestion I've heard on these forums--anybody should be able to break the law without consequences because they might do something later that is a net positive for the world.) We will just never know what Charlie Manson would have contributed to society had we left him free. Kidding, obviously, but what I think ScottHall was saying is that Shkreli would likely never had been charged with securities fraud at all if he hadn't raised the price of Daraprim. If this is true, then his being charged and convicted was politically motivated and it was really for raising the price of a drug not for securities fraud at all. Someone like Jeffrey Dahmer for instance was only prosecuted for murdering and eating people with no political motivations at all. He was making a distinction that you have missed or chosen to ignore.

I agree. And if this wasn't the case humanity would still be hunting and gathering. The relentless striving for more is what has gotten us this far. Look at Jeff Bezos, he's worth over $100B, why does he go to work? Why doesn't he cash out and live the good life? My wife and I were just talking about this the other day. We could probably buy a tiny house someplace with a low cost of living and retire now in our 40's, but we won't, because we want more. I'm sure I'll work until I either physically or mentally can't. Humans aren't wired for contentment with what they have, and thank goodness for that.

Every once in a while you look at a member of a BOD and think WTF is he doing on there (like Al Gore on Apple's board), but this board is made up of more than half of those types. 2 insiders (OK), 2 ex-CEOs(OK), 1 epidemiologist(OK), and 7 political hacks(WTF).

I forgot I had an account with TOR. (free) So I took a screenshot for you. I use uBlock Origin so I really don't know about the ads since I don't see them. It does remind me of the old Google reader. Thanks I think I'm going to try it. I've been using Feedly since Google Reader went away, but I've never been really happy with it.

So Musk, Trump and Bezos were all frauds who eventually turned the corner? No, but these criticisms of her were abundant here even before it was known that she was a fraud.

It looks a lot like the old google reader, so I went to hit signup and it mentioned a premium feature. There is no info about it without signing up, so I didn't join. I don't like having no information about what I'm joining before I join. Too much like bait and switch. What is the cost for premium and how crippled is the reader, or cluttered with ads, if you don't pay?

Had she looked, dressed, and spoke exactly the same, yet her product worked exactly as she said it did with no lies and/or fraud would you still have said this? I don’t see how any of that matters.

Not relevant to you, which is fine. How long does someone taken in by a bitcoin scam hold bitcoin? The only thing this might do, if anything, is dampen some of the wild swings as Mr or Mrs gullible fall for bitcoin Genius ads, buy bitcoin after spending $200 on a newsletter that they didn't need, then panic and sell at the first drop in price. It has no effect on whatever long term value bitcoin has or doesn't have. It might or might not have long term impact on the value of cryptocurrencies (I never mentioned Bitcoin specifically, this is a thread about cryptocurrencies in general). ICOs that used ETH certainly had an impact on demand for it, and if fewer ICOs can easily raise money, it certainly changes the dynamic for the number of projects and people working on them. Sure the worse projects will be hit first, as it should be, but it's still an ecosystem that is interconnected. I don't know what the impact will be, but having both FB and GOOG off limits to market ICOs certainly isn't nothing. But in any case, my interest in the news was mostly related to the societal harm caused by all these scams and frauds. Making it harder for them to reach victims is a good thing, and worth noting. The world wouldn't be a better place if securities were unregulated and sophisticated marketing operations could say anything to convince your grandma to empty out her retirement account. The difference here is that FB and Google are not being forced to do this. Instead of blindly following some law written by elected morons, they will work to get it right to satisfy their users. If they decide to eventually let some ads through and not others based on metrics they come up with they can still do that. When something is regulated from on high in broad strokes, it is always one size fits all and followed to the letter regardless of how absurd it makes some individual cases. I have no problem with Google trying to block their users from a bunch of scammers. One of Google's strengths is the usefulness of the ads they show you, but if those ads are scams that isn't useful to anyone but the scammer. If people stop trusting the ads they see on google, the company is in trouble. Unlike a politician looking for a sound byte ("I passed the grandma protection act..."), Google has every incentive to get it right.

Excellent. Here’s another: “It would not be much of a universe if it wasn’t home to the people you love.”

Not relevant to you, which is fine. How long does someone taken in by a bitcoin scam hold bitcoin? The only thing this might do, if anything, is dampen some of the wild swings as Mr or Mrs gullible fall for bitcoin Genius ads, buy bitcoin after spending $200 on a newsletter that they didn't need, then panic and sell at the first drop in price. It has no effect on whatever long term value bitcoin has or doesn't have.

+1 The Bitcoin Genius is out of a job.

Autonomous cars will kill Uber/Lyft. Why wouldn't I take out a loan, have the car drive itself for the 22 hrs/day when I don't use it myself, and capture that $ myself? And how are people going to find and call your personal car to them if not through the Uber or Lyft app? That's Uber v3.0 after they figure out owning and maintaining a massive fleet of AVs is an expensive, low margin proposition. Uber 3.0 will connect your car with customers where their platform just acts as a middleman. Like the current version but without the drivers demanding better wages. WSJ headline circa 2032 - "MIT Study Reveals Autonomous Vehicles are Working Well Below Minimum Wage" All fine and good until the robots unionize, then we’re screwed.

FYI for anyone who hasn’t read this. $2.99 this week only. https://m.harpercollins.com/9780061792571/cryptonomicon

Autonomous cars will kill Uber/Lyft. Why wouldn't I take out a loan, have the car drive itself for the 22 hrs/day when I don't use it myself, and capture that $ myself? And how are people going to find and call your personal car to them if not through the Uber or Lyft app?

Easiest places to implement due to population density and weather will be first, other places will get it slowly over time. I remember as a kid waiting for cable TV. The small city next to my town had it a good 5 years before my town started getting it, and even then it was a year or two before it reached my street. Kids at school would brag about getting cable and it seemed like forever before it reached my neighborhood. Population centers always get stuff first if population density is an issue. And eventually the weather condition concern will be solved as the AI gets better. Eventually it will be available everywhere but the most rural places (the type of places where dialup internet is still the only option today).

I suggest 'The Blank Slate' by Pinker, it's a great book. Thanks. I'll check that one out too. He didn't mention his book by that name specifically in the interview, but he did talk a little about his opposition to the theory that humans are born a "blank slate".

Just yesterday I listened to an interview with him on Joe Rogan's podcast. It is episode #1073 from Feb 04, 2018 (podcast, youTube). The book sounds interesting, I plan on reading it. A long time ago I also planned on reading "The Better Angels of Our Nature", but completely forgot about it until I listened to this interview yesterday.

Might want to have a reread if that's your takeaway... I haven't read anyone here lately saying ETH should be worth more than BTC. I certainly don't think so. I still hold some ETH which I bought before even the DAO fiasco, but I am looking for a good time to convert it to BTC. I think that there will be some undue excitement at first in the Etherium community when Casper comes online and I think that it is likely that the ETH/BTC price ratio goes up for a little while because of that. When/if this happens I will convert most or probably all of the ETH I have left to BTC. If the price doesn't shoot up I will still probably convert it anyway. If I was to buy more of anything right now I would buy BTC. That's just my opinion and my current plan.

Most are limited. Rectangular green pieces of paper are not limited in any way though. They are printed at the whim of the Fed. Gold is only limited because we currently have a difficult time finding much more of it. This may change dramatically when asteroid mining becomes a thing. What happens when the amount of gold brought to Earth far exceeds all of the gold ever mined here by many times over? Bitcoin however IS limited.