If you're lucky (and I was) at some point you understand that it's not about the material, it's about the process.
Research, assimilate, question, formulate, communicate.
These skills, and the understanding of how to use them, are the real goal -the material is just there to keep your interest.
Yes, obviously, if you are going into chemistry then learn chemistry and so on. But round out your course with other things. Oceanography can give you insight to computer science, literature can promote better communication.
Alas a large number of folks will leave college and never grasp the real value of why they were there. That's OK. The world needs workers.
But if you are at college now, or perhaps going soon, try and see beyond the next assignment. Try and see the process which underlies it.
Most of all college is there to teach you to think. So stop doing for just a moment and start thinking.
Once you see behind the curtain you can't unsee it. And ironically even if I tell you it's there, I can't make you look. Experience doesn't work like that.
Grow up with a safety net, you’ll enjoy the process.
Grow up poor and/or with people depending on you and you focus on the end state?
If the allegations are true, it's insane. But also feels a bit boy cried wolf.
If the honeypot description is accurate, the wolf is real. The below is from section 5 of their complaint [1]:
> Rippling’s General Counsel sent a legal letter to Deel’s senior leadership identifying a recently established Slack channel called “d-defectors,”
> In reality, the “d-defectors” channel was not used by Rippling employees and contained no discussions at all. It had never been searched for or accessed by the spy, would not have come up in any of the spy’s previous searches, and the spy had no legitimate reason to access the channel. Crucially, this legal letter was only sent to three recipients, all associated with Deel: Deel’s Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, and General Counsel (Philippe Bouaziz), Deel’s Head of U.S. Legal (Spiros Komis), and Deel’s outside counsel. Neither the letter nor the #d-defectors channel was known to anyone outside of Rippling’s investigative team and the Deel recipients. Yet, just hours after Rippling sent the letter to Deel’s executives and counsel, Deel’s spy searched for and accessed the #d-defectors channel
Countries and banks (including central banks) are still buying gold as a hedge against dollar and other currencies.
For example, "from November 2022 to April 2024, China reported adding about 314 tons to its reserves, bringing the official total to 2,264 tons by mid-2024".
The logic for holding Bitcoin is the same as the logic for holding gold: a hedge against dollar and other currencies.
Before invading Ukraine, Russia held assets across the world and they were frozen (some of it USD).
Now imagine you are a large holder of US treasuries, would you take some off the table and purchase this other asset (gold) that can ensure you're less susceptible to your enemies sanctions?
That said, let's limit it to BTC. ETH at least isn't so insider-owned. The inclusion of ripple, solana, and especially cardano though is especially stupid. Those are majority owned by the "foundations" and a pump in price enriches a select few.
Here are some items that stuck out to me:
> As for American gold holdings, they’re essentially pointless: Fort Knox is a legacy of the days when the U.S. promised to exchange gold for dollars on demand.
> More to the point, bitcoin was created to be an alternative to the dollar, not a support for it. Far from strengthening the dollar, having the U.S. purchase billions of dollars of assets that were created to be alternatives to the dollar would at best be economically pointless and at worst would actually weaken confidence in the dollar.
so why other than fort knox, are you advocating for this position?
> Sacks said that he has sold his personal crypto holdings.
I went to his twitter account, that's exactly what he said, but that does not mean the same thing as divesting from companies that hold crypto.
Dead Comment
The author is quoting Yarvin's substack here.
Say what you will about reducing the federal workforce - are people really ok with this line of thinking?
The idea of running the govt in 'founder mode' sounds reasonable on paper, until you realize there are established rules that outline the roles of each branch of govt in a democracy. We should be ok that these rules don't establish the most efficient govt, a worthy trade-off against the edge-cases.
The most meaningful cost you could impose in this situation is to establish a direction in which innovation within your borders rivals that of your aggressors, so you are not beholden to the government of their day.