3 ms·

Are you at Stanford? Is it really that common for lecturers at supposedly decent universities to blatantly push their ideology in what's meant to be academic ed

Are you at Stanford? Is it really that common for lecturers at supposedly decent universities to blatantly push their ideology in what's meant to be academic education? He just can't help but keep repeating the word carbon carbon carbon carbon e-waste carbon carbon, but is seemingly unable to utter the forbidden 'nuclear' word at all. Could be a California thing, I suppose. They seem to prefer rolling blackouts to advancing technology for mundane everyday things like energy, as it appears. Another, totally unbiased and very academic reference is to a blog named: LAWFARE, specifically an article: "How to Start Disrupting Cryptocurrencies: “Mining” Is Money Transmission". Absolutely no agenda here, nuh-uh. He then proceeds to cite a 2018 paper on decentralization of mining, from IC3, which is headed by Professor Gun, as a supposedly credible source on bitcoin and ethereum mining. Professor Gun launched his own coin around the same time the cited paper was published, and at the current market rates his conflict of interest is measured in single digit billions at the very least. Good for him, but does not make for an impartial research reference, would you cite Peabody Energy on benefits of coal, do you expect them to say it's terrible? This lecture is simply just DR peddling carbon alarmist dogma and malthusian doom porn for your consumption. You've literally just read an ideology piece with references conflicted in billions and you believe it's accurate and well researched. If this is what passes for expensive "education" at a high-ranked university in the US, many more things I found rather puzzling about that country are immediately clear.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
I'm not an academic at all. My more factual observation is that you're quick to leap to huge assumptions, and you seem angry when people disagree with you.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  What are the huge assumptions in my response above?
  - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
    You assume he's a lecturer - he's not. He worked at Stanford Libraries on digital preservation, but is now retired. The talk itself was written for a business audience originally. He's just a guest speaker called in the last minute. He does make that fairly clear in the introduction. You assume that this is pushing an ideological agenda on the behalf of Stanford, or the state of California, for which I see no evidence. You assume the fact he doesn't mention nuclear is evidence of ideological bias. He clearly states that carbon emissions need to come down now. Nuclear can't do that. I have no idea what his actual stance on nuclear power is, but you cannot assume he is a priori opposed to nuclear power because he doesn't talk about it in this talk. You assume that the links he is providing are further evidence of pushing an ideology. The Lawfare link is making the legal case that money transmission is occurring, which is precisely the point he is making. The fact that a co-author on a paper on decentralization of mining may have made a lot of money out of launching his own coin in no way diminishes the observation that "a Byzantine quorum system of size 20 could achieve better decentralization than proof-of-work mining at a much lower resource cost." It's quite clear he doesn't think that the externalities of crypto currencies can be easily mitigated. But you assume a lot in order to make your case that there is something nefarious and ideological going on.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago

I'm not an academic at all. My more factual observation is that you're quick to leap to huge assumptions, and you seem angry when people disagree with you.

inter_netuser 5y ago
What are the huge assumptions in my response above?
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  You assume he's a lecturer - he's not. He worked at Stanford Libraries on digital preservation, but is now retired. The talk itself was written for a business audience originally. He's just a guest speaker called in the last minute. He does make that fairly clear in the introduction. You assume that this is pushing an ideological agenda on the behalf of Stanford, or the state of California, for which I see no evidence. You assume the fact he doesn't mention nuclear is evidence of ideological bias. He clearly states that carbon emissions need to come down now. Nuclear can't do that. I have no idea what his actual stance on nuclear power is, but you cannot assume he is a priori opposed to nuclear power because he doesn't talk about it in this talk. You assume that the links he is providing are further evidence of pushing an ideology. The Lawfare link is making the legal case that money transmission is occurring, which is precisely the point he is making. The fact that a co-author on a paper on decentralization of mining may have made a lot of money out of launching his own coin in no way diminishes the observation that "a Byzantine quorum system of size 20 could achieve better decentralization than proof-of-work mining at a much lower resource cost." It's quite clear he doesn't think that the externalities of crypto currencies can be easily mitigated. But you assume a lot in order to make your case that there is something nefarious and ideological going on.