"As prices hit $33.8k week, we have now seen this scenario largely play out, and an additional 10% of the Bitcoin network did indeed fall into an unrealized loss. All three metrics declined from ~72% to between 60% and 62% in profit. These levels are coincident with profitability seen in the late-2018, and late 2019-20 bear markets. However it should be noted that both instances were prior to the final capitulation flush out event."
Naturally, instead of saying above, they said that 40% are now losses.
No, Elon responded saying that if they could describe exactly how world hunger could be solved "on this Twitter thread" he would donate $6bn. Nothing to do with "open source", everything to do with making the request undeliverable (UN staff did of course tweet links to already-too-long-for-Twitter UN documents at him)
Considering the "plan" is a table with a list of countries and corresponding numbers that could easily fit on one image (who could have known it was this easy!), its actually very possible to fit into a twitter thread: https://www.wfp.org/stories/wfps-plan-support-42-million-peo...
In fact, a high schooler could have done the same job of multiplying x_starving_ppl_in_country * y_cost_of_food_one_year_per_person, so its quite suprising that it took them all this time to counter with their genius, open source plan
Definitely not. Musk did not ask for anything outrageous in return for the money. It was a PR disaster from the UN's point of view. Perhaps their perception of the risk of calling Elon Musk out like that was broken?
While I was less than impressed by what I saw, I think calling it “a PR disaster” overstates the impact. I observed people reading into both parties what I already know they wanted to believe about each of Musk and the UN.
Don't get me wrong; I normally don't like Musk's antics. However, we _know_ we can't end world hunger with 6 billion USD. At best, we can solve some urgent crisis, but an actual long-term solution requires more than billionaires flinging money at the problem.
The formation of the statement is the problem. Try:
> everything can be viewed through the lens of politics
You wouldn't say "everything is geographical" because that would be absurd (just as absurd as "everything is political") but you could view most topics through the lens of geography if that was the hammer turning all your concerns into nails.
Interestingly, this belief is never shared by people from Europe who've actually experienced communism.
The issue in many cases is _corruption_ which will exist whatever you do (there's always a snake in the garden) so the trick is to implement the right legislation to control it and ensure freedom...
If you're not into cryptocurrencies, then the volatility won't induce any anxiety since you don't care. And if you are into cryptocurrencies, you're already aware of the extreme volatility, some headlines won't change how you feel about that. So not sure what's the loss for reading some cryptocurrency headlines.
I don't care for cryptocurrencies too much (I don't have any myself), but I do check out what's happening in the developer community a bit from time to time, as some of the computer science that is happening there is interesting even if you don't work on cryptocurrencies (or own any).
