And then it will well and truly be stuck at $0. It would be foolish indeed to buy a coin of any cryptocurrency when all the coins are held by one individual.
We don't know for sure, we only know that banks are not lending against crypto, for obvious reasons. What folks are putting on their credit cards, etc, well that is impossible to really track, but shouldn't be any different than retail sales, etc.
You've obviously left out the people who have taken seconds on their houses, home equity lines, student loans, payday loans, and all the other forms of debt that could finance a purchase. And credit card debt alone could easily explain all the value in all the cryptocurrencies combined.
So, I've heard like 3 accounts of people taking out seconds on their houses. I don't think this is a widespread practice. Do you know how many trillions of dollars were loaned out during the real estate boom? Unless you have data to back up your claims that most of the money in crypto is leveraged on the back of all these lines of credit you quoted, I think that's dubious to say.
At any rate, the value of cryptocurrency market isn't a reflection of the amount of money that has been poured into it. The market cap is a product of the last price paid on any given exchange times the circulating supply of currency. So a $500B market cap might be the result of less than $50B worth of cash infusion, so long as the last person who bought in paid $13K for a Bitcoin.
So cryptocurrencies are like Enron? Too big to fail? Too useful? Too what?
Can I interest you in a Venezuelan bolivar fuerte. There are 30,000,000+ people vested in it. There are billions of USD worth of them out in the world. What could possibly go wrong?
You still have a house to live in, no matter what it's worth. I've never thought you should see a house as an investment, and 2008 proved that.
I don't have monopoly money in crypto, in fact I just cashed enough out to put a downpayment on a house just yesterday (fortuitous timing), but I understand how volatile the market is and I only invest what I can afford to lose.
Honestly if crypto did lose 95% of it's value overnight, I'd still keep on buying, and just wait until the market recovered. I don't want that to happen, I'd love for it to go up forever without ever dropping, but I understand that's not a reasonable idea, especially after sitting through the last two major Bitcoin crashes.
> You still have a house to live in, no matter what it's worth.
Maybe. If you actually own the house, sure. But many people had a mortgage, lost their jobs, and they couldn't afford the mortgage any longer. Additionally you can borrow against the value of your house. But since that house was practically worthless, they couldn't borrow to get through the job loss.
Condo towers in Miami that were being put up and finished as the crash arrived, were often entirely empty and couldn't find any buyers. You could buy cheaper units for $30k to $50k. It was common to see 50%-70% haircuts, drops from $180k to $90k etc. Over six years (2003-2009), Miami added 23,000 condo units for a city of 400k. In Dec 2008, nearly half of those remained unsold.
Las Vegas saw some similar action. It suffered the worst overall top to bottom crash of any major city in the US.
Atlanta, and the surrounding suburbs and exurbs, saw significant drops like this as well in many neighborhoods and cities. Same with the Jacksonville, FL area.
Detroit. And they haven't yet recovered. Real estate has negative worth in some places because the legal obligations to raze the site imply costs greater than what the lot and "improvements" are worth.
> I can't even count how many times I have seen a tractor-trailer in the left lane at 70 mph passing a tractor-trailer in the right lane at 69 mph, as passenger cars stack up behind them. It creates a dangerous situation that I can only avoid by slowing down or exiting the roadway.
Presuming the max speed was 70mph, your post epitomizes the real danger. Traffic should not stack up behind vehicles traveling at the maximum allowed speed. Or at least, it should not stack up in a dangerous way. Twenty vehicles stacked up at proper following distances, all traveling 70mph, is actually optimal. Yet you seem to disparage it. You will never achieve optimal traffic flow if the general attitude toward actual optimal patterns is disdain.
If the max speed limit was above 70mph, ignore the preceding paragraph.
Hi. Welcome to Earth. It looks like you missed orientation.
Humans drive at different speeds, and usually follow too closely. We have recognized this species-wide problem, and are currently trying to build driving robots that will reduce the impact. Until they are ready, every collision you may see on the road was likely caused by a human driving non-optimally.
Therefore, rational drivers must presume that the other vehicles on the road may possibly behave irrationally, and therefore must introduce a safety margin for the incorrect behavior of other drivers in addition to the margin defined by their own capabilities.
Show me a train of 20 cars moving at 70 mph with less than 1 second of separation between them, and I'm just going to ease off the accelerator, and maybe look for my next rest stop, until those lunatics are far enough ahead that I'll possibly learn about their 6-vehicle pile-up early enough to detour around it. The only way that is optimal is if there are zero humans in it.
Welcome to the 21st century. Times have changed. Driving robots are now a reality. Adaptive cruise is a real thing, and the most well-known adaptive cruise systems slow down to adjust to traffic speeds, not speed up and pass.
In fact, the most well known system made an adjustment some time ago that it would no longer exceed the legal speed limit.
> rational drivers must presume that the other vehicles on the road may possibly behave irrationally, and therefore must introduce a safety margin for the incorrect behavior of other drivers in addition to the margin defined by their own capabilities.
Exactly. So slow down. Join the train of cars instead of trying to pass them. Maintain a safe distance and don't worry that you will be late. You won't. 20 cars driving 70mph is better than 10 cars driving 80, one driving 85, five driving 75, two driving 90, and two driving 70. It is better for all of those cars, not just the two driving 70. They will all be safer, and they will all arrive at their destinations within 60 seconds of when they would have.
Humans are not machines, of course. But they can work on one important attribute with which every automated vehicle should be programmed: patience. In a world where human drivers increasingly share the road with robots, human patience must adapt.
"Proper following distances" absolutely does not mean "with less than 1 second of separation between them"!
"Proper following distances" means "you can react and stop in time to prevent a collision if the car in front of you brakes very hard".
Ripped from a wiki article on the topic:
"
The United States National Safety Council suggests that a three-second rule—with increases of one second per factor of driving difficulty—is more appropriate. Factors that make driving more difficult include poor lighting conditions (dawn and dusk are the most common); inclement weather (ice, rain, snow, fog, etc.), adverse traffic mix (heavy vehicles, slow vehicles, impaired drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.), and personal condition (fatigue, sleepiness, drug-related loss of response time, distracting thoughts, etc.). For example, a fatigued driver piloting a car in rainy weather at dusk would do well to observe a six-second following distance, rather than the basic three-second gap."
I am describing what people actually do, not what they should do. I think everybody knows that they shouldn't tailgate, but they just do it anyway, because "F U get out of my way".
The right lane is for people driving below the maximum speed limit.
The second lane from the right is for people driving faster than people in the right lane.
The left lane is for people driving the maximum speed limit. People weaving in and out of the left lane so they can pass people who are driving at the maximum allowed speed are a problem.
Because instrumentation is imperfect, two drivers who believe they are driving at maximum allowed speed could be driving at different speeds. Ideally, there would be enough lanes for people to travel constantly in the second from the left lane at maximum speed limit, and to move into the left lane to pass somebody who's instruments have them traveling slightly slower. But traffic is never ideal, and extra lanes are very expensive. So people need to chill when the driver in front of them seems to be traveling 2mph below the max speed limit. On a 60 mile commute this won't make more than 2 minutes difference in your arrival time. Probably closer to 10 seconds.
No. Stop it. This attitude is consistently responsible for the most dangerous road conditions I see driving in America.
Keep right except to pass. Period.
Everybody traveling the same "maximum speed limit" is a fantasy and rarely exists in reality. There are lots of good reasons for traveling over the speed limit (quickly passing to avoid prolonged travel in close proximity to another car, for example).
Left lane cruisers inevitably lead to long queues in the left lane with empty lanes to the right, which leads to people passing on the right, tailgating, and a host of unpredictable situations that increase the danger on the road much, much more than simple speed (duh, many speed limits are arbitrary and political, not based on some absolute "maximum safe speed", which is a ridiculous notion anyway for roads that carry both sports cars and heavy tractor trailers).
Your prescription creates situations in which it is literally impossible to drive safely (and frankly, I'm sick of finding myself in these dangerous and completely unnecessary situations because of Americans' insane (and sometimes illegal[1]) driving practices...I don't want to race anybody, I just want to get to my destination safely and efficiently). Even choosing to waste your time being the slowest car on the road in the right lane, you end up being put in danger by cars trying to right-lane-pass with dangerous closing speeds up to dangerously close distances.
I'm seeing some interesting POV's on thread (and some road rage issues) but I'm genuinely curious: if the speed limit plays no part in the equation... Let's say I'm traveling ~85 in the left most lane while passing cars in the center lane traveling ~60(posted max speed). Car behind me approaches going 200. Should I be expected to slow down to 60 and force a merge to center lane in order to yeild to the girl going 200 behind me, even while we're both using the lane as a passing lane, she's just passing at a quicker rate? Or can I keep using the passing lane until ample room is available to merge gracefully? At what point if any should someone's blatant disregard for some traffic laws(max speed in this case) lead me to anticipate they won't be following other traffic laws or conventional behaviors, and modify my behavior when interacting with this vehicle?
No, you continue traveling at a safe passing speed until there's space to safely move to the right at let the faster vehicle pass. Just be courteous, basically, and don't play vigilante to "enforce" one rule (speed) while ignoring another (keep right except to pass, and the probably unwritten, pass quickly).
I certainly never said that speed limit plays no part in the equation, but I believe that safe speed for a given combination of vehicle and road and traffic conditions is much more significant than the legislative limit.
Your question works just as well when the example is reversed: if someone is blatantly disregarding lane discipline, why should I expect them to drive safely in any other regard (and why wouldn't I try to put as much distance between me and them as possible)?
200mph vehicle in this case is an asshole if:
a) she doesn't slow down and leave a safe distance between you and her in order to let you finish passing
b) she otherwise creates a dangerous situation from excessive relative speed, which would probably be the case most of the time if she's going that speed around other traffic
This isn't just a thought experiment. This is genuinely what driving on Autobahn is like. You might think you are overtaking fast in 150kmph but then theres an even crazier guy coming in 200 behind flashing you for going too slow.
Both alternatives are equally common, either you slow down to 60 and let the 200 car pass, or you stay in the overtaking (maybe speed up a bit of of courtesy) and let the 200 guy slow down. In my experience the faster usually has higher priority unless the traffic is very heavy, because by going faster they also disappear faster and don't hog the left lane for as long as someone overtaking at a slower speed.
You should move into the center lane when it is clear to do so and continue in that lane until the need arises to pass someone.
I don't understand why people want to pick fights with other people while driving. A person traveling way too fast is clearly does care about acting dangerously, why the hell would you want to aggravate that person? The best outcome is nothing happens, the worst outcome is your death.
Plus, if you're blocking these people, you're also preventing them from getting a speeding ticket.
> A person traveling way too fast is clearly does care about acting dangerously, why the hell would you want to aggravate that person?
Back before speed cameras, it was useful to aggravate such folk, just a little, so they would speed up. If you gamed it right, you could set up a little convoy, and sit in the middle. At night, you would watch for brake lights ahead, and flashing lights behind.
I agree. That's what I do, just a thought experiment for the above comments who say they get engaged at certain driving behaviors. When I was younger I used scaugh at people who stopped under bridges during inclement weather, I've seen enough accidents that now I just assume they have enough to live for that 20 minutes isn't worth the added risk.
> Your prescription creates situations in which it is literally impossible to drive safely
That is ridiculous. If the vehicle in front of you is traveling 75mph and you want to travel 80mph, it is not impossible for you to drive safely. If the vehicle in front of you seems especially dangerous to be behind, it is still not impossible to drive safely.
I recently got run out of my lane by a semi who swerved in from the left right on top of me in the far right lane. The semi then kept swerving from the right shoulder to the left shoulder erratically. The driver was obviously extremely impaired and re-passing was risky. But it did not make it impossible for me to drive safely.
I drive a two-lane highway everyday that has no reasonable alternate route. The posted speed limit is 55mph. It has double yellow lines along much of its length. I frequently get stuck behind somebody poking along at 45mph or slower. I fully understand how frustrating it is. But that doesn't mean I can't drive safely.
I'm not talking about situations with two vehicles on the road. What happens with regular traffic is that you get someone driving 75mph in the right lane and another driving 75mph in the left lane, and it's game over for the whole highway. Once a few more vehicles accumulate, there's no safe driving stance. If you stay in the left, a gap develops on the right and people coming up to the jam pass to the right and then unsafely merge in. If you stay on the right, people passing others on the right are closing on you at ridiculous speed, or you're stuck driving a couple of feet away from another vehicle (on your left) that's tailgating and being tailgated and jockeying for position.
Taking the stance of "I'm traveling the speed limit, so I can stay in the left lane as long as I want" ignores the reality that there are other drivers that don't necessarily agree with you. Staying right except to pass minimizes the risk to everyone involved, accommodating both conservative drivers and aggressive or unsafe drivers, and lets everybody coexist. Staying left increases the danger and promotes road rage and other unsafe driving behaviors such as tailgating and right-lane passing.
I think you have missed the point. If two trucks are driving 25mph side by side on a two-lane 75mph freeway, blocking all other traffic, everyone behind them can still drive safely. They don't have to merge in and out between lanes. They don't have to be dangerous.
Too many people take the attitude that such a situation would force them to pass on the shoulder, or to cross the median and drive the wrong way on the other side of the freeway. They have no other option. They were forced to take drastic measure because there was no other choice.
Of course there's another choice. Slow down. Yes, it is frustrating. Yes, it is inconvenient. Yes, yes, it is many undesirable things. But it is an option and it is safer.
And you have also missed the point. You are correct that they don't have to be dangerous in that situation, but what you describe relies on everyone around you driving in a perfectly calm, rational, coordinated manner, which is not what happens in reality. Driving with the expectation that everyone around you is a protocol droid is unrealistic and dangerous.
What I described is what actually happens in that scenario, and unfortunately I only have control over my own actions, not those of "everyone behind them".
If you're deliberately ignoring reality and blocking a line of traffic, telling yourself, "these people don't have to be dangerous", the only things you're accomplishing are self-delusion and making the road more dangerous.
Stay to the right except to pass. It's really not that difficult.
The speed limit is irreverent. It's about relative speed between vehicles. Slower stays to the right. Slightly faster moves left to pass them as they come up behind them and moves right as soon as appropriate afterwards. Apply recursively for the number of lanes.
The "I'm following the law, screw moving over for anyone " attitude when applied in the left lane is exactly the problem that's causing this discussion.
>So people need to chill when the driver in front of them seems to be traveling 2mph below the max speed limit.
This attitude is exactly the problem.
No, that person needs to stop making a rolling road block and move over. Even if I'm going 10+ faster than the next lane to my right I'll move into the next open spot and slow down if there's someone who comes up behind me. It's just basic manners. It's the exact same at 55mph as it is at 85mph.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine a line of 20 vehicles all traveling at a safe distance going the exact same speed--the legal maximum limit.
Does this sound like a utopia to you, or a nightmare? Do you think this would make traffic more optimal, or would it cause untold safety issues?
If somebody in the left lane is traveling at the legal maximum speed and it causes traffic to stack up behind them, does this create the optimal traffic pattern or a safety hazard?
You might point out that most accidents are caused by speed differentials and involve somebody traveling much slower than the rest of traffic. I am still unclear why that would be blamed on the slower driver if everyone else is breaking the law.
What you describe will be safe when all 20 of those cars are self driving. In the meantime, your trying to get 20 people to agree on what is the correct speed. Not only that, but your trying to get 20 people to hold that speed exactly. Invariably what happens is that a couple cars are going to go a little slower up hill (or whatever) and cause yo-yo'ing in the line, which is what causes actual traffic jams.
The result is the guy in the back is going to be speeding up and slowing down around the speed limit. That is extremely annoying. If you haven't been this guy, I can only assume your always the guy in the front cruising in the fast lane causing 19+ people behind you to get angry and want to kill you.
Basically, travel in the right lane, unless your going to put the effort in and pass the person in the right lane within a reasonable time-frame (say in under a minute). Otherwise your just creating more problems. Wishing that isn't true doesn't make the problem go away, its just creating unsafe conditions for other people, who are frequently just trying to drive as safe as possible too.
1. Travel in the rightmost lane except to pass.
2. Pass in the rightmost reasonable lane.
3. When there is not lane available on the left to pass, slow down.
4. Be patient.
Why do we always leave off 3 and 4? The angry posters here are so focused on 1 and 2, but don't seem to acknowledge 3 and 4.
The legal maximum in most states (65mph) is way too slow for ideal conditions. That speed was decided on during an era when cars were far less safe, capable and mechanically sound as they are now.
A typical family sedan in the late 70s had a double-digit top speed. And those "recommended" speed signs that say you should do 35mph around a corner, were actually accurate. If you dared to take a 35mph recommended speed corner at 36mph, your tires would be yelping.
In a modern car, you can take those casually take those corners at 55mph; aggressive cornering starts at double the posted speeds.
It's the same thing with the freeway. Going 80mph in a modern car is probably safer than a 1980s car was doing 65. Today's Civic has the cornering, acceleration and braking performance of a 80s Ferrari.
It's interesting to me that your employer isn't a privacy concern to you.
How much of the data about you in the Equifax breach do you think came from your employer? How much of your data that has been breached came from Wells Fargo--not because you bank there, but because your employer uses them to process direct deposits? And how many times has your employer themselves been breached to give out your name, date of birth, ssn, driver's licence #, passport, address, details about your dependants, etc.?
I'm curious why you assume that the data your employer has about you hasn't already made its way into the hand of "big companies that can make connections between data sets."
>It's interesting to me that your employer isn't a privacy concern to you.
Well a part of it is situation specific - it's a professional service organisation. Everything & everyone is up to their eyeballs in confidentiality agreements so the whole "we'll sell havoc's data for 200 dollars" mindset just isn't a thing.
>I'm curious why you assume that the data your employer has about you hasn't already made its way into the hand of "big companies
They take security very seriously - far more than I do in a personal context. So I don't feel exposed on that front.
So as I said - big brother google is my primary worry here. God knows what they can patch together with their black magic. Supercookies and assorted bullsht. And their eco system is quite difficult to escape (part of the reason I switched to iphone).
I haven't seen it yet, but I don't know why somebody couldn't develop a similar kit to put on the front bumper that could warn about traffic ahead, lane drifting, etc.
A <$100 kit that can retrofit my old beater with some modern features would be money very well spent to protect a multi-thousand dollar asset, personal injury, and liability.
I believe that all manufacturers are required to build in backup cameras now. Why not require all registered vehicles to be retrofitted?
Let's imagine some companies (like Sun Microsystems) making wonderful language (like Java), and provide NO IDEs. We really had tough time during the initial years of Java - just with Borland JBuilder and some other primitive IDEs - until we could get wonderful IDEs like Eclipse followed by IntelliJ-IDEA.
It's widely understood that you're referring to JetBrains' Kotlin. In such case, really industry-famous-IDE support for a 'new language', is some sort of a gift!
Besides, why would a company want to invest in R&D to create a language and just give it for FREE, without any tangible business benefits.
Remember, Sun did so... giving away Java for free. Eventually - under stress - they themselves were sold (and bought by Oracle).
