He didn't say that. Might want to reread what it's saying, instead of what you think he's saying.

Not downvoting, but I just think you're way too optimistic. It's like believing we, humans, could stop fighting wars. Sure, theoretically. But the difference between theory and the practical is that in theory there's no difference.

Bullshit, apparently.

In Finnish Kamala means terrible. So when I see "Kamala Harris" first thing my mind conjures is "Horrible Harris" or something like that.

So, to get to the point, "Terrible Care" sounds like not much would change.

Not sure if has hit all time high, but I doubt it. But even if it did, the reason why it did is pretty simple. It's unregulated and a scam. So, get a bunch of sociopaths and let them target people, get them to invest in crypto and then they will be able to sell their own imaginary money to these people for real money. This is how it works in its most raw form. Someone invents monopoly money, convinces someone gullible that it's the future and sells the people the monopoly money for real cash.

Of course there's a whole bunch of obuscation and hype talk to hide what's really happening, so it's not immediately obvious to those people.

Muddying the waters is also the small group of true believers who really think that it's only matter of time when the monopoly money is going to take over and via the power of magical thinking completely fix capitalism and the rich bastards who have money instead of them.

So the signal to noise ratio is pretty bad for really seeing what is actually going on.

But it's not secure. At least not in any way more secure than your password is, or that coin that's in your jacket pocket. The whole security aspect is just another strawman.

He didn't make an evaluation of someone's personal feelings. MAGA heads might not feel sad, but it's still a sad life from outside perspective.

As an third party from different country who has no idea of the topic or people involved, all I have to say that from outside perspective you're the "villain" in this conversation, so maybe chill out and consider things?

Not really? I mean, only partially.

Ok, no, Crypto in any form is bad. But unregulated is not an improvement.

Also, money has always since the very beginning been monolithic control finance, the first money were printed by kings. There just were a lot instability with the coins.

The other options are not to have capitalism at all, go back to bartering, or reach the hallowed myth of post-scarcity.

Me? Granted I get all their games for free (thanks dude!), but I definitely won't use Epic store. Would have gotten it for free if I used it, though.

So, uh, no? In fact within the "human spectrum" you generally care at least somewhat about every tick of the number. So it's actually more useful for people.

Because I doubt you can feel the difference between 71f and 72f. But it's possible to notice the difference between 21 and 22, although you're pretty picky if you do.

It got the initial true push as an anti capitalist reaction, well if we ignore the scammers and gamblers. But more in the sense that "hey you got money but I don't have any so imma make my own and be just like you".

Also when did I ever link it to post scarcity? I said, the only "solution" to monolithic money is either bartering or post scarcity, or abandoning capitalism in some fashion.

Crypto is just another immutable database, except shared. It's not a silver bullet or solution for... anything really. The validation methods are cute or terribly resource intensive and they add no real value, aside from consolidating power within the network.

I know a guy who's been working there for well over a decade, I wonder if he's got any insights on this weird behavior they've been doing. He's got no power over financial decisions, so it's not likely he's got any details.

Not true on my Sony experia, in Finland. So I am thinking that instead of adjusting the settings for alerts, maybe check settings of the store itself? The play store app, like this screen? Maybe. Dunno if that's the difference here.

The AI technology we're using isn't "new" the core idea is several decades old, only minor updates since then. We're just using more parallel processing and bigger datasets to brute force the "advances". So, no, it's not actually that new.

We need a big breakthrough in the technology for it to actually get anywhere. Without the breakthrough, we're going to burst the bubble once the hype dies down.