Keep in mind banks are NOW regulated but the regulations came After the bad event not before.

Regulations probably help but they basically serve to keep evolutionary memory in place in a corporate ecosystem where companies can spawn from nothing.

Bad banks no longer exist but regulations, after an extinction event, perhaps try to make that evolutionary event permanent.

At least that is my mental model.

Regulations are very lagging. And they should be understood to create moats and friction. There is no free lunch. Regulations purposefully shrink or destroy markets. That is how markets work.

Something I wish tech folks would absorb more.

If it's not frustrating and stupid, (to you at the time) it's probably not really a regulation.

> Bad banks no longer exist

This is a funny take on things, and untrue. But traditional finance is way safer and better controlled than the crypto frontier. Someone like coffeezilla has to rely on patreon and ad revenue to do the sort of journalism that exposes how debased cryptocurrency finance is. There should be much more money in exposing the fraud, but our premier capitalists are complicit in the fraud. They are fraudsters at heart, which is why they have the money and influence they do.

> Regulations purposefully shrink or destroy markets.

Sometimes maybe, but that's a matter of corruption. Regulatory capture has been used to create regulation that protects monopolies, duopolies, and the broader oligarchy for a very long time. When politicians were representatives of their voters, things worked better. Post-citizens united, the incentives are broken and we have a congress full of duplicitous, self-interested idiots.

Not just regulated. This is why banks are banks. This is why everything is slow!

When everything goes wrong the only defense is to be slow enough to fix it.

This idea that there are shortcuts that you can be decentralised and fast at any size is wrong.

I would assume binance is more like a bad bank but without the internal friction to make stuff like this hard.

They (folks who work at a place like binance) look at banks with contempt for that speed. And I don’t entirely disagree with them.

But you’re absolutely right, it’s hard to compromise something that moves at such an absolutely glacial pace.

As an applied mathematician who went into industry and has friends still in academia it's quite interesting.

My view is that the people who think doing maths is about being able to knit maths quickly and correctly are quite sad.

But for the people like me who bound themselves to computers a long time ago, it feels like a revolution. Sure you might now be simply tending your garden of machines and allocating capital and resources like a Gardiner picks seeds for various sunny spots but you can now do a lot of stuff and for people were good at gardening but not knitting it is a game changer.

Regardless of whether this is true or not you have basically described the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.

You already have elites siding against their own people and tyrannically collecting taxes and giving it to their Mercenary base.

It isn't hard to imagine a benevolent Sea People offering to free the locals from their despotic elite.

The Bronze Age would not have had the same migration structures obviously but one might imagine it happening locally.

What is funny is that a lot of these explanations of what happened seem to fly in the face of what people find is possible to ascribe to situations now.

> the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.

That is a very Thought Bubble perspective. It's not a mainstream view of any kind in the UK. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus is not in favour of a Russian invasion, nor is he expecting one. Nor is his mate in the pub.

> have basically described the UK and how people think about a Russian invasion.

.. what?

(is this some reference to the extremely confusing base incident that may or may not have just been diesel thieves?)

I think a journey with multiple agents to collect information would give you a more complete picture on data points.

Ask for DNA and what is known.

Climate records and what is known.

Town losses and movements. In some places inhabitants seemingly moved way way up the mountains all of a sudden. This is usually associated with conflict or tidal waves.

Migration evidence.

And any other disease or food shocks.

One must also be careful to understand the data observation process and to justify any belief that the collapse is not merely absence of observations.

Let's add latency and bill the client for literally every thought they have and every interaction with every system!

It feels a bit like how Amazon and META purposefully do not create search that can actually help you filter for exactly what you want.

There are incentives to create products that work just barely, just enough for you to use them and don't leave for elsewhere but then they want to maximize everything else like the probability you view side products or ads or just click around and type and generate more data.

Unless someone else offers something better they will offer something that is basically as bad as they can get away with so long as there are benefits to them for doing so..

Physical land is quite different. And if squatting is legal, it makes a kind of tax of ownership and also means that any registry is invalid.

If you are saying the physical house only and not the land that is different yes. Someone who can move the house obviously should still own the house. Trespassing usually doesn't invalidate ownership of all your belongings.

More important is the meta concept of like we write confusing contracts and then execute them and we agree on an end date (all transactions done) and then informally and implicitly we agree that if anything was wrong you only have z years after close date to fix it.

This is kind of thing where big people can do it themselves and other people perhaps need a regulated entity to review their docs ... Like mortgages and what not.

The interesting thing here would be if the IRS decides to have an opinion ...

A lot missing from this analysis.

Usually due to discomfort of the analysis.

It would be interesting to pull the data and control for demographics and then some kind of educational factor and social media factor

The problem is the interviewer though.

There is no fixing an interviewer who doesn't understand the answers really. You need a third party for that.

Have had weird interviews with people who don't introduce themselves and assume that I definitely am interested in whatever the job is even though I know nothing and proceed to ask questions that amount to "how does palantir work" and get irritated when the answer isn't "we used database X".

Fundamentally one needs a meta approach that handles these cases too without knowing who is interviewing who. Could an interviewee give feedback like this without sounding arrogant?