Real frontiers, places were something new is happening are always filled with scams.
This is true of crypto, as it was of the internet bubble at the turn of the century, and it was probably also true of various gold rushes and oil-prospecting and land speculation schemes.
Basically, if there's something new and important, a wealth-creating engine, there's an opportunity to invest in that new thing, and reap big financial gains.
People are greedy, and so they want to get some of those gains for themselves.
This creates an opportunity for scammers and swindlers:
If you can offer an opportunity that has something in common with the wealth creating engine, most people won't be able to tell the difference between the real version and the fake version, and many, motivated by greed/hope will want to buy into it.
And on top of that is speculation dynamics: Someone might invest in something, knowing that it has very little fundamental value, because they expect that other people will invest in it, driving up the price.
In the limit you get a Keynesian beauty contest where everyone knows that the underlying fundamentals are fake, but they still think bet they can ride the boom and exit before the bust.
But more realistically, every investment vehicle has a mix of people buying because they're betting in the underlying wealth-generation mechanism (correctly or incorrectly), people who are speculating, and people who are too confused to know what they're betting on.
But this is a bit of a digression from my core point:
The presence and even predominance of scams is not strong evidence that some new wealth-creation engine is fake.
Scams are a natural side effect of real wealth-creating innovation.
New-wealth engine -> Some people getting rich quick -> Buzz -> Hope / Greed of getting rich quick-> Economic niche catering to that hope / greed -> Scams
Of course, sometimes you get this whole thing built around something that isn't creating new wealth at all, too.
In _Diplomacy_, Kissinger points out that balance-of-power systems are rare in human geopolitics. A much more common international organizing principle is empire.
This leaves me with the impression that there are roughly two kinds of geopolitical orders:
1) Equilibrium / balance-of-power / or multi-state scenarios: in which there are many nations, no single one of which is powerful enough to dominate the others, and if any try the others gang up on it in self defense.
My eyes have been weird for like a month now: I’m not sure if they are having trouble focusing or what, but I can’t seem to look at screens without getting a sort of slight “cross-eyed” / eye strain feeling.
Maybe I’m getting near-sighted?
Anyway, this is making doing most of thing things that matter just slightly aversive, and I think I should see an eye doctor.
I'm trying to set up a personal dashboard for myself, and looking for the best way to do this.
My first attempt was the simple thing: with google sheets. But this is already proving to be a pretty big pain.
Doing the computations for even one metric (time-length of my main deep work session, each day), is using tens of thousands of cells across multiple sheets, and when I change something, it takes multiple seconds to update.
There's a bunch of extra complexity because often the only way or the only easily legible way to do something in a spreadsheet is to spend whole columns storing intermediate results, where, in contrast, if I was doing with with python, these would be simple composable functions.
There's a class of people who are something like pragmatists: they realize that academia has all kinds of problems, but they also recognize that it is where a huge majority of many kinds of intellectual work are done.
So in the same way that a real radical cut's his hair and puts on a suit, very smart people with serious ambitious agendas will join academia because that's where (many of the) intellectual big boys are, and where (much of) the, eventually, civilization-shaping discourse happens.
("Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”)
It sometimes strikes me how primitive it seems that we elect INDIVIDUALS into positions of power, instead of some other kind of institution or epistemic process that might be better suited for making complicated decisions.
If feels silly that we have this hugely complex world, but governance is still mostly a matter of deciding which monkey should be the one in charge.
What if instead of electing a person to be president of the united states, we elected teams that are known to work well together and integrate into an effective whole, or even companies with all of their internal hiring and decision making practices?
I spent the past week in New York city. Here are some thoughts about the vibe.
One of the first thoughts that I had when I got here (I think, as a reflection of my having trouble with the subway system, like a NYC-noob) was "SF wants to present itself as comfortable. NY is very much NOT presenting itself as comfortable."
Living in New York is hard. That's why people are proud of it.