I have also seen many films about the dominance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). That would happen if we did not actually control the development of AI and wanted to replace all employee with robots.
It is worrying that if the speed of development of the robot industry is high compared to the knowledge improvement of workers, those who can not afford to do the high-tech work, will go to where, while robots are replacing them from manual labor. 

I didn't say that he should give his money away. I simply used it to show the gap between the richest and the rest of the society.
As for what you've said, even if you gave a million people some money and 5% used it to pay their debts and get out of the shitty life they're living, wouldn't that be worth it? You can never help everyone, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying. Giving them jobs would of course be a much better idea.
We shouldn't wait for the government to do it. Those who have billions lying around should really put some of it into the lowest levels of society, or the'll one day have to fight to keep their wealth. The larger the gap the higher the incentive for an uprising.

USA has been touted to be 'land of the free' and 'country where dreams come true', but it has all turned out to be a mirage. College graduates are leaving the system deep in debt with no job security as having a diploma nowadays doesn't guarantee employment. A law or a medical degree for example costs in the ballpark of $100k-$150k and people are basically slaves to the banks for many years to come not taking into account any other loans they might have taken out like car or house loans etc. No wonder people are living paycheck to paycheck.

This is the perpetual treadmill that USA finds itself on. Many citizens have to work several jobs just to keep up with the bills. It's even commonly accepted that people have huge amounts of debt that they can't handle. What is wrong with society when so much money is being circulated, inflation is so high, but wages can't keep up and people have to work harder and harder to keep themselves from going under?

And yeah, people would just blow that money on useless shit because that's what Hollywood has trained them to do.

I watched they talk about it on Keiser Report and apparently over 1/3 Americans have completely no savings and another 1/3 have less than 1000 USD in the bank. The amount of people living in total poverty, unable to pay their bills rose from 36 to 48 million in 7 years. And all this while Jeff Bezos holds 150 billion. Enough to give every single poor american a thousand dollars and still be a filthy rich billionaire.
The flow of wealth from the poor to the rich is huge and frankly cannot be stopped. The more poor people there are the richer the 1% becomes. People became the slave of the system they're living in, because everything has a price tag.

80% of workers living paycheck to paycheck could partially explain why more consumers haven't bought bitcoin:

The majority of workers are unable to collect sufficient disposable income to invest in crypto currencies.

This could mean that future economic improvment, better job markets and wage hikes could be correlated with a rise in the userbase and crypto holdings. That's assuming that 80% of workers living paycheck to paycheck is preventing many who would like to buy bitcoin from purchasing due to monetary and wage constraints.

Also note this piece while containing good info and a good historical overview was authored by a berekeley economist in liberal california who could be resorting to FUD to mislead people into unfairly blaming Trump for everything.

There are already machines in Walmarts buying phones from you and in lot's of fastfoods and other restaurants machines get your order.

A world without politicians is not too smooth as now. Most of the countries are making progress with their hardworking politicians. No doubt, their image is not true due to corruption but somehow they are necessary for the world and the world without politician is mismanaged.

It will be amazing without politicians ,world will became a much better place thats for sure if we change politicans for just well educated simple people that dont wana be part of this elite program and start thinking with own head not just be puppets like most of them are...i partially agree their has to be someone to lets say lead but it can be a group of scientist and highly educated people that works like a group for best interests for their country and people ....only sheep people have this stupid idea that everyone needs a leader no matter how bad it is and one thing i can tell you smart and strong people dont need leader ,their is no perfect leader no hero that will save us all, its like every person need to start with himself ,because if we want healthy and resilient future is not something a hero can create for us. It’s something we can only create together in concert with one another.

Mac always

As a basic principle, I'm against debt and lending. Debt is one of the ways that governments and banks enslave the population. However, there are some instances where a loan can be beneficial - starting a new business for example, as long as it is profitable of course. Borrowing Bitcoin is fraught with danger, and lending it is not much better. Both the borrower and lender have to decide if repayment is to be made in Bitcoin or fiat, and extreme price volatility turns this into a major factor.

So why should you borrow Bitcoin? There aren't many businesses that can be funded in Bitcoin, and generate Bitcoin revenue. Those that are able to do so, can probably be funded with a share issue, and this is a safer option for both parties. Another reason is because you believe that Bitcoin will drop in value. You sell the Bitcoin, and repurchase it when the price is lower. The name for a person who does this is "an uncovered bear", and because you are uncovered, you face unlimited potential losses.

Why would you lend Bitcoin if the market is likely to rise or drop? If you are a long term holder of Bitcoin then the price doesn't really matter until you decide to sell. Leaving your Bitcoin on the blockchain does not produce any revenue, and you may want to gain a bit of interest. However, you have to ensure that you will eventually receive repayment. Failure to take reasonable precautions will leave you in the same position as the bankrupt fiat banks.

There is another possibility.  You can place your Bitcoin in a transaction, and use this as a security for a loan, or a service such as escrow. When the security is no longer required, you can reclaim your coins.

My attitude is to leave my coins alone on the blockchain, and not borrow anything. Am I missing some revenue opportunities?

What i really mean is I need a laptop for Wallets (staking and MN's(VPS-PuTTY)) and viewing exchanges, keeping live with crypto news

Now I'm looking at :

ASUS VivoBook S15

HP ENVY 15 X360 RYZEN 5 16G 1T+256SSD RADEON Vega 8

I find plagiarism easier to deal with that pure one line shitposting


Pick a megathread in the altcoin discussion, just search for the matching text on the last 3-4 pages, report 10 or so copy-pasters till you feel you're going to get dumb just from reading that much crap, and then enjoy a beer while refreshing the modlog to see them getting banned

God...what the hell I'm doing with my life   

Many people are surprised to see that coin prices continue to decline. But do not panic, one day the price will continue to rise, the most important thing in this business is to be patient, surely you will get a high profit and do not panic or rush

I have noticed in crypto currency space that people find it difficult to focus and be determined to succeed in crypto
People tend to forget that millions is not made in a day;

But to be sincere I think when we are determined to make it
Crypto is the home for everyone

Our generation does not have the same opportunities as the previous generation; it is difficult not to be concerned about the future and angry about the past. 

It is normal to see more Millennials living with their parents than with roommates. Marriage, having children and buying a house has to be delayed longer than before; according to the seniors, we are the ones to blame along with other things they say like lazy. No matter where you are, it seems this generation has to try harder to achieve less than any generation before. Rent/mortgage could consume half of the income; jobs are unstable if you can find one and probably you are overqualified for it.

In order to have a decent life, we have to live with DEBT, to study we have to take a student loan and probably many of us won’t be able to retire until we are 75. Salaries have declined and entire sectors have disappeared. At the same time, the cost of living has increased. It is clear that there are not enough opportunities for all of us.

Are we the ones to blame? Is the previous generation to blame? Do we have to adapt our lifestyle? Is the government capable to do something?

Seems the haters are everywhere. People that have never visited the US nor have ever known anything about her except from American television sure have some opinions. One of these days the US will cut itself off from the world and let it fall apart. It has already started

We have been devaluing the dollar, we don’t care because once pulled from the world market it’s value outside the US will be meaningless.

We are almost to the point, another 20 years, where we will supply our own oil.

We grow enough food to feed every man woman and child in this country.

We have started closing military bases overseas.

The writing is on the wall, question is if we did pull from the world stage how much of the world would be civilized 10 years after?

Many people have commented that it's impossible to eliminate politicians because a leadership-follower dynamic emerges within any society, citing the history of tribal warfare up to modern day liberal democracies. While this seems true, it falls victim to the is-ought fallacy. Even if we take it as granted that this is true, that doesn't mean that it ought to be true. Sure, corruption has existed in all societies with leaders who have the capacity to abuse their power, but that doesn't demonstrate how that must necessarily be the case.

For a thought experiment, let's envisage a world without politicians and what that would take. Many other users have supported the idea that 'experts' / 'intellectuals' / 'elites' / people-with-phds should be in charge of the world, presumably because they have access to higher knowledge which allows them to understand the sophisticated dynamics of a complex society and fix them. First, higher intelligence individuals might actually allow people to more efficiently extract rents / exploit / manipulate their subjects, might not have the emotional depth of 'less smart' individuals, or possess the moral fibers necessary for creating a 'just society,' whatever that actually means. Replacing one set of corrupted politicians (which, many people noted, seems to be the natural result of putting people in positions of power, regardless of who they are..) with another set of hyper-intelligent politicians, vulnerable to the same tendencies of evil, seems like a poor choice. --But, all is not lost. The underlying attractiveness to the idea of elite-rule (reminiscent of Plato in his Republic) seems to be in the discrepancy between the 'objective facts' of the world and the 'subjective reality' of a voting populace. Simply, people vote for populist leaders who are so far detached from the objective facts of the scientific world that it boggles the mind -- thus, putting technocrats in charge will fix the problem; they already have solved the problems, the solutions just need to be implemented. Putting aside the question of whether or not that is true -- that technocrats have ready-to-apply solutions to the world's hardest problems -- the real attraction to experts as leaders is that they could, seemingly, create a fair and intelligent society which takes everyone's preferences into account within the context of a concrete - rather than fictional - reality, unswayed by the pleas of the 'reactionary, ignorant' masses. But that doesn't necessarily require people to implement. In fact, in the spirit of this post, people might be in the way. If we could aggregate everyone's preferences in a secure way -- say, their every action was recorded by their phone, laptop, etc and then weighed and crunched alongside everyone else's preference (instead of voting, we 'synched' on a global level), smart contracts and AI could merely implement the required changes to our world to align with global preferences. Perhaps there could be a digital, institutional constitution which prevented egregious abuse / the aggregation of despicable preferences. I'm interested in what people think about this type of approach to replacing politicians? Does it sound appealing?

No.

Even if every single politician disappeared, we would end up with new ones, whether or not our government was elected or appointed by the Great and Powerful Oz. Even small tribes needed people with political skills to keep things working, to encourage folks to get along and to keep from running afoul the neighbors. As societies became more unified, as tribes merged into larger and larger communities until there were nations and empires, the need for leaders with political skills increased.

The problem is not that we have politicians, but that we often expect something of them that they cannot deliver or that we allow ourselves to be duped.