hiq

42 ms·

601.
by hiq 5y ago
I think the cyclically adjusted version is even more telling: https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
602.
by hiq 5y ago
Without curation it's not worth much.
603.
by hiq 5y ago
You may want to be exposed and catch it less often though.
604.
by hiq 5y ago
Unfortunately BitTorrent is still heavily centralized when it comes to discoverability. Without a website hosting .torrent files or magnet links, it's very limited.
605.
by hiq 5y ago
> This is about the server which is not open source The Signal server implementation is mostly open-source, and some users managed to run their own instance. > you wouldn't know if they actually run that code without modification
606.
by hiq 5y ago
> Same cryptography Not really, e.g. the logic to send messages is different, does WhatsApp have sealed senders? > Why should I trust Moxie more than Facebook? The point of E2EE is that you don't, especially since you can update
607.
by hiq 5y ago
> Instead it's decentralization that fixes it. That's FOSS. You can have FOSS using centralized, federated or decentralized protocols, I don't see a direct connection between the two. To go back a little, Moxie's main
608.
by hiq 5y ago
> Signal-the-tech and Signal-the-app The Signal protocol[0] is used in Signal[1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) > th
609.
by hiq 5y ago
> you have to blindly trust them not to collect data about you Why blindly trust them if you can inspect the client, like you easily can with Signal? It's all about how you choose to update your client and which due diligence you wa
610.
by hiq 5y ago
Your link mention historical correlations that contain the impact of central bank policies, it's not clear to me how well this generalizes to a given and strict supply policy such as the one bitcoin has. > No, they are different poo
611.
by hiq 5y ago
If the author lurks around: the investment part would be more convincing if you added the gains you got from it to the table, at least between the first and last year.
612.
by hiq 5y ago
I thought your were talking about price inflation, but you actually wrote "monetary inflation", my bad. But what's the point of taming monetary inflation if that does nothing for price inflation? I thought that price inflatio
613.
by hiq 5y ago
> > I'm not familiar with Robinhood, but I think it's mostly about buying stocks. > Nope. You missed the point. It's about a company (or centralized entity) being in control of your money. Sorry, I meant that the com
614.
by hiq 5y ago
> Managing your own monetary policy and being able to spend without limits is important tool for governments. Sure, but we're talking about switching to BTC, which doesn't allow this either. > Bitcoin is the only currency wh
615.
by hiq 5y ago
2. wise.com (not familiar with alipay) says I can send USD5000 to China and have it arrive by tomorrow. I guess you were trying to send a bigger amount? Did your transfer just bypass regulations, either in the country you were sending it fr
616.
by hiq 5y ago
> Imagine you're Turkish, Venezuelan, Argentinian, etc. > BTC might be your best bet. I can sympathize with this idea, although if the US government just allowed Turkish people to open bank accounts in USD and transact with each
617.
by hiq 5y ago
I think this comment is on point and related to your points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29646492 I'm not familiar with Robinhood, but I think it's mostly about buying stocks. Blockchains won't help
618.
by hiq 5y ago
Sorry, I must be tired. Did I misunderstand your answer, or are you saying that you did change your mind about BTC just because it increased in value? If that's not the case, why did you change your mind about it? Edit: sorry I just sa
619.
by hiq 5y ago
It would be more helpful if you could say what changed your mind. From your comment I can't say whether you changed your mind because you learned something in your studies, or because BTC went from <1$ to 10k$+.
620.
by hiq 5y ago
1. The way you'll provide the real-world information won't be decentralized (it'll be some kind of oracle). 2. The costs of decentralized finance are too high.
621.
by hiq 5y ago
Globally adopted standards provide additional interoperability. What does this have to do with blockchain technologies?
622.
by hiq 5y ago
> You do not NEED it, but it can enable it. How so? Why is it any better than a public API? > In the situation above the benefit is you, the recipient, are never again dependent on Reddit to validate that award for you. You're as
623.
by hiq 5y ago
Many (most?) work contracts mention that you can't just take another job without at least informing and asking permission from your current employer, who would most likely say no, especially if it's another software engineering jo
624.
by hiq 5y ago
> Or the blockchain is the API, which is public, and requires only a single integration point for everyone. You don't need a blockchain for interoperability, neither does it enforce interoperability.
625.
by hiq 5y ago
> - She gets ₹100 for every book she finishes regardless of genres but ₹500 for any non-fiction documentary-ish like a biography of a great person. Are you sure that's a good idea? At least at one point, pecuniary incentives for chi
626.
by hiq 5y ago
> Our brains are trained on very different cadences. I think this is a very interesting concept. If you're used to quickly finding out which information is relevant or not for you (e.g. from technical docs, emails, etc.), going back
627.
by hiq 5y ago
> I would like to be able to attach images as files and have them come though unmodified. It is a general purpose communications tool, it should not be editorializing over my attachments. It's a usability trade-off, it's better
628.
by hiq 5y ago
Why do you think people buy NFTs?
629.
by hiq 5y ago
> there's community and energy in the space that I haven't seen online since the early days of the world wide web. Just like communities pumping AMC and other meme stocks. People get hyped easily when they can get something out
630.
by hiq 5y ago
Exactly, so it doesn't have a value of 0 for these shareholders.

More ›