Video Of The Week: Token 1.0 vs Token 2.0

AVC community member William Mougayar sent me a video of a talk he recently gave in Moscow.

I really like the framework he articulates about half way through the talk regarding token 1.0 (where we are now) and token 2.0 (where we need to be before we will see real sustainable disruptive value creation with blockchain technologies).

Here is that bit:

If you’d like to watch the entire talk, you can do so here.

#blockchain#crypto

Comments (Archived):

  1. William Mougayar

    Thanks Fred.I’ve also written a blog post diving further on that topic http://startupmanagement.or

    1. rocco

      Excellent and sober thoughts on a chaotic topic.Thank you for not talking about stupid Tulips.

    2. Eric Satz

      william are you in vancouver? do i remember that correctly?

      1. William Mougayar

        Am from there, but not there now. where are you? best is to email me [email protected]

  2. rocco

    Nonsense, man made global warming is nothing more than the latest Marxist attack on free markets.I say that as I am living in the midst of the coldest Christmas season in the history of the Midwest USA.If there was any way for man to warm the climate, I would be all for it.

    1. creative group

      rocco:It is OK to return to the basement with your tighty whities. The talking points from Koch Industries doesn’t play well with college educated contributors.The educated understand the playbook which you drink heavily from.https://www.ucsusa.org/glob…Captain Obvious!#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

      1. rocco

        Ahh, “scientific consensus”, the refuge of leftists and other crackpots throughout the world. Consensus has nothing to do w/real science.Another leftist cause that was pushed by fanatics, like you, was something called eugenics. Look it up and let me know how you think that worked out for mankind.

        1. creative group

          rocco:We are proudly Independent. You Trumpsters give consensus a bad name. If there were a political stew with humans with a political view guess who we would cook right along with you? It appears your responses lead us to believe who would be cooking along with you would surprise you.Political brainwashing is ruining this truly great but far from perfect country.Captain Obvious!#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

          1. rocco

            You’re not proudly “independent”, you’re just another leftist orc.

          2. rocco

            Oh yes I forgot.Death to leftism, socialism, marxism, islamofascism, elitism, moderatism, unionism and the ignorance required for these evil ideologies to exist.

          3. SubstrateUndertow

            isms bad !bingo that’s it 🙂

          4. rocco

            Not all isms, but definitely all those I noted

        2. Vendita Auto

          Are you saying that the melting ice cap data over the last ten years is not verifiable?

          1. creative group

            rocco:The Contributors don’t have time to research advertisements and opinion pieces from the Koch Brothers paid deniers and contributors without any scientific background disguised as factual scientific research. But we do.James Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation paid for by the Koch machine.Try again.Captain Obvious!#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

          2. rocco

            It’s data compiled by NASA. You leftists love the man and his government, or is that only when the government is being run by your leftist overlords?

          3. rocco

            What you’re saying is, you’ve got nothing to refute the facts and real science in the article, so you’re simply going to run away like a typical leftist b”tch?

          4. Vendita Auto

            Ahhh your read it in Forbs must be true then

          5. rocco

            The satellite data is from NASA, and unlike all the “consensus scientists” involved in climate-gate, the NASA scientists haven’t been caught faking their data in order to continue receiving government grants.

          6. Vendita Auto

            “Ahhh your read it in Forbs must be true then” Most grateful for your unbiased learned scientific peer review

          7. creative group

            Vendita Auto:Your attempts at receiving an educated response is futile. The Cyborgs have a better chance of converting him in a fictional TV episode of Star Track.

          8. rocco

            I knew you were a Trekkie. You know what else I know?You’re the one living in your parent’s basement, and you’re probably right now sitting on their couch in your panties.You’re such a typical leftist. You project your sins onto your adversaries.

          9. JLM

            .This is a perfect example of the difficulty of understanding the problem and arriving at a consensus.The issue of polar ice caps is linked most closely to sea levels. It is not really embraced by global warming advocates.It is not clear whether the ice is cooling the water or the actual melting process is warming/cooling the planet.Everyone cherry picks their own data.As an example, the attached NASA article pinpoints the fact that the study of the antarctic polar ice cap taken together with the glacial ice data supports the “fact” that the sea level is being REDUCED not increased by the Antarctic phenomenon.https://www.nasa.gov/featur…I have read so many studies as to be convinced there is no consensus on anything even when the same data is used.What I do know is that ignorant statements about people wearing tidy/tighty whities are usually promulgated by the least informed participants.Given the wholesale miss on global warming predictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult to place any credence in the predictors.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          10. rocco

            Spot on, you are 100% correct, and very diplomatic.One point that I would like to make about your comment, it doesn’t matter where the “consensus” is, b/c consensus means absolutely nothing as far as science is concerned. The whole concept is a leftist construct, fabricated and deployed to prop up the greatest scam of all time.Death to leftism and the ignorance required for this evil ideology to exist.

    2. JamesHRH

      Warmer by creates weather volatility.It’s getting warmer, no doubt. The cause can be legitimately doubted.

      1. rocco

        More nonsense. There’s absolutely no credible evidence that the earth’s climate has warmed since 1997.In fact, there’s more evidence that the earth’s temperature has dropped.And none of this change is due to human activity, rather the change is due to changes in the sun’s activity.

        1. JamesHRH

          Feel free to back that up.Here’s my simple doubter’s guide to causes: record cold temp in Houston on Jan 1 is in 1928.Kondratieff cycles anyone?

          1. rocco

            “The sun is almost completely blank,” meteorologist Paul Dorian notes. Virtually no sunspots darken its face. “The main driver of all weather and climate has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century.”https://www.washingtontimes…

      2. JLM

        .I think we are still unable to identify where the Earth’s temperature is to be taken. With that difficulty, it is difficult to suggest the patient’s temperature is rising, if we can’t agree where to take its temperature.We can’t even agree where to take it, when to take it, what impact seasonality has on things, or whether it should be land or water or both?I know when the Earth gets an enema, it goes in in Newark, New Jersey, but I don’t really know where the Earth’s temperature is taken.It is my sense that the winters are getting a bit colder while the summers are about the same.Remember, we are discussing a +1.5F increase over 120 years. I question whether we had sufficiently accurate thermometers 120 years ago.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. JamesHRH

          The good people of Newark are not pleased.

        2. rocco

          That’s a nice Impala, and you are right about Newark.

    3. SubstrateUndertow

      Your absolutely sure now ?Maybe that is the problem being so unquestionable sure about such a complexity issue!

      1. rocco

        I’m absolutely 100% positive about two things in this comment thread.Leftism is evil, and man made climate warning is the biggest scam the world has ever experienced.

  3. Richard

    Where were all the experts 3 years clearly articulating why bitcoin would NOT become a currency (first) and would be hyped to audiences on podcasts as gullable as the Glenn Back show?I listened to an interview of legendary investor Jim Miller. When asked why his hedge fund has invested in bitcoin (at $300), he literally stated that it was after meeting Fred Wilson.That said William has been the sane voice

    1. JamesHRH

      It should tell you the true value of reputation capital & salesmanship / true believer w track record – ship.

    2. Ah yes, the AVC.com literati

      Where will you be ten years from now when this virtual currency Ponzi-ish scheme is “ancient history” and most governments have decided to outlaw virtual currencies?In case you have failed to grasp what is happening let me break it down for you: the Wild Wild West days of the Internet are rapidly coming to an end. This virtual currency gambling nonsense is like Las Vegas in the 1930s. It will be a shortlived phase.Futhermore, if we were to ask the government officials in Lisbon, Madrid, Dublin, and Athens how pleased they are with their decision to essentially ship their printing presses to Brussels how do you suppose they would respond.A national government must have a military otherwise that country is essentially a protectorate. France? Certainly a soverign state. Denmak? Essentially protectorate? See? Simple!Similarly, a government must be able to not only mint money but restrict the use of foreign currency in their internal economy, otherwise they are allowing foreigners undue influence in their economy. This ‘aint rocket science.Sure, for a child three years can seem like an eternity. Is three years really a long time for you? Three years!Your comment is as inane as it is smug[email protected]? How about changing your monikier to @PomposityHappens.

      1. Vendita Auto

        Richard “Future shock, infact, is culture lag, that is, the failure to notice what’s happening in the present” [Marshall McLuhan]

  4. jason wright

    installation and deployment phases come in an ordered sequence – you can’t run before you can walk. I think the blockchain space is still working out how to tie its shoelaces.and to those trying to usurp bitcoin, that is a game of whack the mole. use your energies more productively.

    1. JLM

      .Not only is life CRAWL, WALK, RUN — you have to get it in the right order.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Vendita Auto

        AI missed the standing up part, my Borg associates think the same : )

  5. jason wright

    the end question was interesting. governments will deploy blockchain crypto currency systems to ‘enhance’ their existing fiat systems. imagine every bank note having its unique public key, and when you use one to buy something in a store et.c. the retailer is required to scan it to associate the note with the transaction on the blockchain. it would kill counterfeiting stone dead. it would eliminate the traditional black economy (but may stimulate alternative mediums of unofficial transaction), and squeeze out cash economy tax evasion. that’s just for beginners.

    1. JamesHRH

      If governments adopt Blockchain, it really is worthless.

      1. jason wright

        adoption is seemingly very tempting to government for a number of technical reasons, but it may ultimately hasten its demise. government is worried by blockchain.

        1. JamesHRH

          Concern likely justified.I still don’t think it has the core characteristics of a mainstream trend.

  6. Vendita Auto

    I am very interested in what China will eventually do here to possibly leverage the geo political / internal leadership stage there is IMO room play a state pegged card. The game is fascinating to observe: http://www.ecns.cn/2017/12-

    1. jason wright

      China will be eyeing the Japan Korea Ripple axis with great interest, which feels like a defensive move to counter China’s renewed economic power and influence (also a sneaky way to recapitalise weak banks).

      1. Vendita Auto

        Japan Korea tribal axis shallow. China centric has the internal scale to control the financial model. The other old chess game never really changes USA EU India OZ and the now democratic Prize fighter Japan.

  7. rocco

    Run away, run away, that’s the leftist battle cry.

    1. SubstrateUndertow

      Left-right give it up. That is so 1900 century !It is now all about centralized vs distributive dynamic balancing.In your world I’m guessing it is still all about earth-wind-fire-water instead of the atomic-table model?

      1. rocco

        yes, I’ve been hearing different forms of this argument since well before I was officially certified as a Leftist Whisperer.Sorry, but people who use this type of argument are always people who are not fond of being called out as leftists.I have found that those who write about things like, “centralized vs distributive dynamic balancing” or “earth-wind-fire-water instead of the atomic-table model” are pretentious nobs or gigantic doooshy douche bags.So which one of those two descriptions best fits you?

  8. sigmaalgebra

    > the science of global warmingIt’s simple to debunk, destroy, kill off, and end that attempt at “science”: The attempt made predictions about global average temperatures, and now we have compared the predictions with actual observations and have found that the predictions were wildly wrong; nearly all the predictions were for much higher temperatures, and in fact what we got were essentially no temperature changes at all.So, dozens of the predictions and the real observations are nicely summarized and compared in a nice graph athttp://www.drroyspencer.com…As I told the other poker players when I put down my royal flush, “read’m and weep.”.As my 10th grade plane geometry teacher screamed at me when I gave the solution to a challenging exercise after the teacher and the whole class had struggled with the problem for 20 minutes without finding a solution, “You knew it all the time!” — of COURSE I did; otherwise no way would I have raised my head and hand in class, thus, interrupted my sleep and asked the question!She wasn’t very good: After class I showed her my solution to a problem I’d gotten out of class, and she claimed “You can’t do that”. Well, as I later discovered, I’d just shown her a reinvention of the advanced technique similitude. I may well have been the best geometry student she ever had; she failed to recognize the lion by his paw! She thought that my sleeping in class meant that I didn’t know the material. Nope: I’d already worked not just her three, simple assigned exercises but all the non-trivial ones in the chapter for the day and ALL the more challenging ones in the back of the book.For an attempt at science, such a failure is the end of any credibility for that attempt. So, the attempt is killed off, done, kaput, dead, “a late parrot”, over with.You are beating a dead horse already slow roasted to a falling off the bone, fork tender, succulent 180 F.For the “science” of human and CO2 caused global warming, stick a fork in it because it’s done. Throw away the skin, bones, and fat, chop it up, pour over some BBQ sauce, put it on a lightly toasted white bread bun, top with some simple, white coleslaw, and serve it with some onion rings and cold beer! The best possible end for that dead horse.CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Okay. So what? So, is water vapor.How much extra CO2 causes how much extra temperature? Well, as in the graph, the global warming “science” people took their best shot and nearly all their efforts were wildly wrong, miserable, total failures. So, net, as far as we can tell, at anything like current CO2 levels, CO2 has essentially nothing to do with global warming — its effect is just too darned small.Virginia: But, but, but, but, but temperatures HAVE changed, we know that they have changed, …. And CO2 levels have changed! We have records, e.g., from ice cores going back 800,000 years!!!!!Yup, Virginia, temperatures have changed.And, Virginia, we do have records. From the ice core records, we see that temperatures have gone up and down, and CO2 concentrations have gone up and down.But (A) not once were significantly lower temperatures closely preceded by significantly lower CO2 concentrations. So, lower CO2 didn’t cause the lower temperatures, and there must have been other causes.(B) Higher CO2 concentrations did not stop temperatures from falling. So, CO2 didn’t keep temperatures up, at most, didn’t do much.(C) Only once in all of history have significantly higher temperatures been accompanied by significantly higher CO2 concentrations, and that is in the last 200 years as we pulled out of The Little Ice Age.For the higher temperatures now, they are still lower than in the Medieval warm period which had relatively low CO2 concentrations and was before CO2 from human industrial activities. So, the warming of the Medieval warm period was not caused by higher CO2 but by something else.So, in all but one case, and maybe also in that case, higher temperatures had a cause other than CO2.Moreover, from 1940 to 1970, while CO2 levels were increasing, we got some significant global cooling, not caused by the higher CO2 but by something else.(D) Yes, in the propaganda scam movie of Saint Laureate Al Guru, he showed temperature and CO2 concentrations from the ice core data. He saw that on his graph temperature and CO2 went up together and, then, claimed that higher CO2 levels caused the higher temperatures. Well, he omitted that the CO2 levels went up about 800 years AFTER the higher temperatures. So, the cause of the higher temperatures was something but not CO2. And the cause of the higher CO2 was from more biological activity from higher temperatures from the real cause of the higher temperatures. Simple. Guru ran a scam.Net, from the record, lower CO2 concentrations didn’t cause cooling; higher CO2 concentrations didn’t stop cooling; higher temperatures caused some higher CO2 levels; and at most only once did CO2 cause any warming.So, for nearly all the many periods of cooling and warming, CO2 was totally irrelevant or essentially irrelevant. So, there had to be another cause for all or nearly all the temperature changes.The best candidate cause is solar sunspot activity. More sunspots yield some warming; fewer sun spots yield some cooling. Good, now look in your Paris Climate Accords and at your UN IPCC buddies for means of affecting sun spot activity in the sun!The global warming alarmists are going back to guilt-ridden, charlatan-manipulated, ignorant, primitive sacrifice rituals — shut down our economy, as they claim, to save the planet much like the Mayan charlatans killed people to pour their blood on a rock, as they claimed, to keep the sun moving across the sky. Details are in, say,http://books.google.com/boo…from page 76 ofSusan Milbrath, Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies), ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000.withIndeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 – 1982, 7:8). The global warming alarmist charlatans want to shut down our economy to stop what they claim will be global warming. Due to the failure of the science as above, we have to conclude that the leaders of the global warming alarmists are charlatans pushing a flim-flam, fraud, scam.The correct response is no, No, NO, HELL NO. Go away. Do something else.For Trump, apparently he understands just fine.Got it now?But there is the famous:It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.Upton Sinclair Who’s paying you to push this flim-flam, fraud, scam? What’s the going rate, in whole $100,000s per month?Are you being paid by the global warming alarmists or just the anti-Trump crowd or both?At this table, I’m holding all the high cards. I totally destroyed all the scam with just one reference to just one graph. Simple. You are holding trash cards. You have zero chance of winning even one cent. Instead, you will just lose; each time you post such nonsense, you will lose again. I’d think you’d get tired of losing? By now, nearly all of the other deceived, gullible alarmists — even at AVC in NYC — already have gotten tired of losing and have given up on the scam.For the global warming scam, I’m pissed off? No, I’ve been pissed off. I’m way past pissed off. At this point at each mention of global warming, I’m ready to scream loudly enough to blow the rings off of Saturn.Why? Global warming is a scam. The leaders are all liars. I don’t like liars. Much of the scam is to shoot the US economy in the gut. The scam wants to be on my back and in my pocket. You don’t want to hear me start screaming.

    1. SubstrateUndertow

      Ok lets say your right.Now for some extremely simple risk management.Cleaning up the atmosphere/water pollution has no deadly negative down sides and many health and quality of life benefits.Doing nothing and discovering you were wrong about your infallible prediction runs the risk of terminating modern civilization as we know it.It seems a no brainer that when the down side is so catastrophic we might just want to error on the side of caution with benefits.And on the topic of science where does science declare any such a-priori complex conclusion to be sacrosanct just because it is your personal assessment of the evidence?

      1. sigmaalgebra

        Early draft — delete.

      2. sigmaalgebra

        Cleaning up the atmosphere/water pollution has no deadly negative down sides and many health and quality of life benefits. That’s nothing like what the global warming alarmists, Saint Laureate Al Guru, Obozo, the Paris Climate Accords, the UN IPCC, etc. want to do and not at all what I responded to and not at all relevant to this discussion.Doing nothing and discovering you were wrong about your infallible prediction runs the risk of terminating modern civilization as we know it. This is essentially the same argument for killing people and pouring their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky. Sure, if the sun quit moving that would likely “risk of terminating modern civilization as we know it”, but we don’t kill people and pour their blood on a rock.But the global warming scam alarmists are keeping poor, single mothers in third world countries cooking indoors over dried animal dung and getting serious respiratory diseases because the alarmists keep trying to stop development of electric power in their countries. For details see The Great Global Warming Swindle athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…The leaders of the global warming alarmists are not just liars but are some really, really, bad, nasty, nasty people.It seems a no brainer that when the down side is so catastrophic we might just want to error on the side of caution with benefits. You are being impossibly obscure.You are not responding to anything I wrote.Again, once again, yet again, over again, one more time, this time just for you, the alarmists are not, Not, NOT, NOT talking about cleaning up the air and/or water and, instead, are talking about shutting down a major fraction of the economies of the industrialized world and paying big subsidies from the developed countries to the poor ones. The alarmists are talking disaster.If you are having some problems with reading comprehension, then there may be some junior college courses that could help you.And on the topic of science where does science declare any such a-priori complex conclusion to be sacrosanct just because it is your personal assessment of the evidence? What you wrote is wildly obscure and not clearly connected with anything I wrote.But to bend to try to make some sense out of what you wrote, again, once again, yet again, over again, one more time, this time just for you, a pattern is developing here, just as I wrote,For an attempt at science, such a failure is the end of any credibility for that attempt. So, the attempt is killed off, done, kaput, dead, “a late parrot”, over with. Then for yourwhere does science declare Well, the US is awash in good education in science, about two dozen world class research universities and at least 100 other universities where can get a good education in science.Why? Congress. That is, the US Congress. While it might not be a big headline on the anti-Trump, MSM news, the guys in Congress are personally highly concerned about two things (A) US national security and (B) their own health. So, they allocate big bucks to US academic research for national security and health care. Really big bucks. How big? Long ballpark 60% of the annual operating budgets of the top US research universities was from “overhead” fractions of research grants in mathematics, physical science, and biomedical science from funds allocated by Congress. So, who is really paying for Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Cornell, Brown, Courant, Columbia, … Berkeley, Cal Tech? Sure, YOU are via US Congress. And the money is going for research, especially in mathematics, physical science, and biomedical science.Why? Because as in the beginning of the movie about John Nash, “Mathematics won WWII”. That’s an exaggeration but not far off.Let’s support that — three items.After Pearl Harbor, the US was in deep trouble “with the US west coast wide open to attack”, from the documentary movie Midway, from Japan.(1) A few months later were Coral Sea and Midway. Done. IIRC, Japan brought six aircraft carriers to Pearl, at least two to the Coral Sea, and four to Midway. At Coral Sea, the US sank one of their main carriers and a smaller one. At Midway, the US sank all four carriers. So, that was five Japanese carriers sunk. IIRC, the six were about all they had. So they were down to one. The US lost one carrier at Coral Sea and the Yorktown at Midway. But the Japanese navy was severely weakened and never recovered.Carriers? In WWII in the Pacific, carriers were a big deal: IIRC, by the attack on Okinawa, the US had 24 aircraft carriers in the Pacific.How did the US do so well at Coral Sea and Midway? Commander Rochefort and his code breaking: Rochefort told Nimitz that the Japanese were about to attack at Coral Sea and then Midway, and Nimitz was ready and waiting, especially at Midway. Midway was one of the greatest naval battle victories in all of history. Thank you Commander Rochefort.(2) Rommel lost in North Africa. One of the main reasons was he was short of supplies. But, Germany DID send him supplies, and they did leave Italy. Just somehow, nearly all the supplies sank in the Mediterranean on their way to North Africa.Why? The British, especially Turing, broke the German code, knew when the supplies were leaving Italy, and sank the ships in the Mediterranean. The British were careful to hide how they knew and, thus, before attacking a ship first flew over it as if they were discovering it via reconnaissance. It wasn’t reconnaissance; from the code breaking, they knew where the ship was.(3) The bomb, the atom bomb. It was heavily a big exercise in applied math, especially for the critical mass calculation.So, from WWII and since, the Members of Congress got their lesson and learned it well: The main pillar of US national security is US leadership in research in mathematics and physical science.E.g., a good guess is, without too much exaggeration, Ding Dumb Dung Dong Rocket Boy in Ping Pong Yang can hardly take a step or a dump or utter a word without some US detection equipment knowing about it.Yes, Little Rocket Boy has some submarines. Yup. Decades ago the Ruskies had one in the Pacific that sprung a leak and sank. They didn’t know where. We did; we knew just where it was. How? Applied math and physical science. We went and got it. We gave a burial at sea for the Russian sailors, made a video tape, and gave it to the Ruskies. IIRC Howard Hughes had a role in that.We did that decades ago. So, where are the submarines of Little Rocket Boy? Bet we know just where the heck they are, 24 x 7. To support myself and my wife through our Ph.D. degrees, I used to work in some of that applied math: Summary lesson. If we know where they are, then we can sink them right away. No problem.If we have to do something violent about Little Rocket Boy, then likely, blub, blub, right away down go all his submarines along with the rest of his navy.How? Applied math and physical science funded by Members of Congress.My Ph.D.? I didn’t pay even a dime of tuition. Who paid? Congress paid.Once a prof confessed to me that they had more graduate school tuition scholarships than they had good applicants. Yup, there was a good Ph.D. education tuition-free for any qualified applicant.For the physics department at my ugrad school? There was a USAF contract that read “To further the technology of the infrared.”. Considering what the USAF and US national security have since gotten from the infrared, that money was well spent.Biomedical? See the Eric Lander lectures. He’s spending big bucks. So are lots of other labs. They are working on the details of life, from DNA to proteins to the rest of life. The principle, of course, is reductionism, that is, figure out how it works step by step, from first principles on. So, like fixing a car, know about how it works from the piston rings, torque converter, and brake lines, etc. on. So, then when something is wrong, using how it works and how it’s supposed to be, see where and how to fix it. Heavily what the Members of Congress want fixed is cancer. No joke. What is Eric Lander talking about in his lecture? Right, curing cancer. No joke. Oh, by the way, Lander is mostly a mathematician.For a Lander sample, there ishttp://www.youtube.com/watc…The MIT page for the course is athttp://ocw.mit.edu/courses/…Understanding molecular biology is a big deal. E.g., athttps://media.ccc.de/v/34c3…can see a 1 GB WEBM file of a 1 hour lecture on free electron lasers. That lecture is from Germany, but IIRC the US is also pursuing such things. As in the lecture, the effort is wild, up, off the tops of the charts stuff: So, they use some “free electrons” in some heroic ways for some astounding ways to generate some coherent X-rays. The X-rays are in short, intense bursts. Short? IIRC, picoseconds or some such. Intense? More than if all the solar radiation hitting the earth were focused on one square centimeter.Why? For a fairly complicated biological molecule, the X-ray pulse blows off all the electrons and gives a diffraction pattern that (IIRC from some Fourier transform work) gives the locations of the nuclei of the molecule. So, get instant structural analysis of the molecule. Sure, used to do this by making a crystal of the molecule and doing some more X-ray and Fourier work, but the new work is for molecules that can’t get to form crystals.The goal is to be able to look at complicated biochemical molecules, e.g., from lots of protein folding, and map where all the nuclei are.It’s a huge effort, just to try to get some biochemical molecular structure.Lesson: A lot of people with big bucks to spend are super serious about making progress on DNA, RNA, proteins, and cancer. Serious. Big bucks.If you get a good science education at a top US research university, then you will find, if you (A) make an effort at some science, (B) make a prediction, and (C) the prediction is seen to be wildly wrong, then your professors, department, and university will junk your effort at science. Don’t believe me. Instead go try it and find out.E.g., in freshman physics the first test had four questions, and I got all four. The best anyone else in the class did was get two. So, the prof said that any three were 100%. So, I got 133%. For the rest of the semester, I got 100%. So, for the first semester I led the class.In the second semester on one test, I made a sloppy arithmetical error — I have poor clerical aptitude so that without lots of checking, too much for the time available on a test, it’s tough for me to get every digit just right. So, the prof gave me 0 on that problem. I complained. The prof was outraged and said:Science careers have been ruined by such an error. He was correct.As in the graph I referenced, the efforts at global warming science made lots of predictions of significantly large warming that were later seen as wildly wrong. So, we junk their efforts at science. But I covered that.More generally, as far as I know, we have no significant evidence at all that CO2 from human activities is causing significant global warming.Go get a good science education and learn.In the meanwhile, quit trying to ruin the US economy and hurt poor, single mothers in third world countries. Those countries have problems enough without your trying to stop their development of electric power, etc.E.g., apparently McDonald’s just shut down about 200 of their restaurants in India because of bad sanitary conditions. Such could be the case in India? Yup. India needs some up to date infrastructure, including electric power.But I wrote all the important points in my first post. There you just refused to read what I wrote. Writing you again likely won’t help. You want to do a lot of destruction to the US and most of the rest of the world for no good reason. IMHO, that’s dumb.Your post shows that you don’t read.But, long the NYT, NYC, and AVC were really big on global warming alarmism. A few years ago, you fit right in. I was objecting then. I was right then; I’m right now; I’m right for solid reasons; so, I’m sure that in the future I’ll still be right. The alarmists will be seen as really destructive dupes and convenient idiots of a silly scam by some really nasty liars.

        1. Vendita Auto

          That is a very offensive post.

    2. Vendita Auto

      Thank you Sheldon

    3. Vendita Auto

      Is this a script from young Sheldon ?

  9. JLM

    .The problem with sticking to the global warming catechism (I actually thought we had abandoned “global warming” in favor of the broader “climate change”) is that the sell-by date of the dire predictions of failing to turn the world over to Al Gore have now come and gone.The dire predictions turned out not to be true.That is not to suggest the world has not increased in temperature by 1.5F over the last 120 years, but rather the extrapolation of that “fact” has simply been wrong when measured by the same yardsticks which the most ardent, zealous proponents espoused.We might all agree on the basic fact of an increase in some mythical temperature while disagreeing on what it really means and what it predicts for the future.What has also happened is that the scientific community has now taken a harder look at more data — having been nudged in that direction by the data used by the proponents of global warming — and found that the world has been undergoing warming and cooling cycles long before man arrived with fire and fast food, let alone Volvos.If man is not the source of ancient temperature cycles, might it also be possible that man is not the source of even the current 1.5F?If it is to be “science” which is to settle the debate based on science itself, then one cannot fail to question the science when the dire predictions based on that same science fail to arrive.If you tell someone that science says the polar bears are all going to be moving to Miama or are going to die, and it doesn’t happen — is it not possible y’all are wrong about a lot of things?The well-grounded scientific mind questions everything which cannot be proved and then examines the evidenced with an open mind.If the predicted outcome fails to materialize, the scientific mind goes back to review the evidence, the projections, the conclusions.Evidence. Proof. They play trump.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. Pete Griffiths

      I totally agree thatA) our opinions on climate change must be evidence basedB) gathering pertinent such data, and more especially such data over time periods lengthy enough to hear upon the problem is extremely difficultC) direct methods of collecting historical data are not available for anything other than recent periodsD) whatever evidence we gather can be challenged and endlessly analysed and re-reanalysed.NonethelessA) scientists are ingenious – they are gathering relevant such data covering centuriesB) using clever indirect means. Eg analysis of ice coresAnd it seems to me that A) there is a consensus that there is a real phenomenon that is different in kind occasioned my human activityB) this phenomenon is climate changeC) the rise in C02 is an important causeD) eg https://climate.nasa.gov/ev…Furthermore A) I fall to see what any of this has to do with left vs rightB) I can’t see why a community such as NASA scientists would be operating in some naive effort or dark conspiracy to hobble the efficiency of our economy or that if other countriesC) I do know a world famous climate scientist and an entirely confident his motivation is scientific not ideological.D) there will always be well meaning amateurs who challenge the current scientific consensus for any of an endless set of motivations.I appreciate that this topic is complex and freely admit that the climate change theory could be wrong. We may discover new evidence. That is the way of science. But for now it is the theory that best conforms with the facts and if it is in fact true it would seem prudent to initiate policies to ameliorate the problem. It may be unwelcome or painful but what rational alternative do we have?

      1. JLM

        .There is a lot of action which one would attempt to justify under the heading of climate change which would not be contentious if filed under “air pollution” or some other less broad or cult-like classification.As an example, the issue of coal is one that should be attacked at the smoke stack and based on the chemistry of the smoke rather than as a contributor to global warming.Even if the words “global” and “warming” had never been used together in a sentence, the case for cleaning up coal based solely on air pollution would be a sound concern.If EVs are better for the environment on a quantum basis (taking into the equation the cost and science of generating electricity) then it rises and falls on its own merits. This injects the criticism of the gov’t picking winners through gov’t subsidy.I haven’t heard a single voice say the magnitude of the problem is more than 1.5F + in the last 120 years. That is the limit of the data.I have never heard anyone explain how they were able to measure temperatures so finely 120 years ago. This is engineering, not science.I don’t remotely see this issue as left v right other than the obvious politicization of everything that occurs in the current and recent environment and when action is proposed.As an example, the US Obama admin entering into a “treaty” — both in the case of the Paris Accords and the Iranian deal — without sending it along to the Senate for confirmation is a fair signal of its suspect nature.As a guy with a degree in engineering who understands materials properties, the evidence is the most important thing. In much the same way that 8000 PSI concrete is demonstrably stronger than 3000 PSI concrete, the issue is not the strength, it is the application of the material correctly.There is no necessity to build 3-story buildings with 8000 PSI concrete just as it would be inappropriate to build the first 45 stories of a 50-story building with 3000 PSI concrete.No sooner than we agree on the raw data than some statistician is “curve fitting” data to prove their own bias. That is when things go awry.If we agree that we are looking at 1.5F + in the last 120 years, then the the data will guide us.If we are yelling to the crowd that the polar ice caps will disappear in the next 20 years, the oceans will drown Atlantic City in 20 years, and those 20 years come and go and we are still screaming the same alarmist heralds, then we are no longer anchored to the data.The entire CO2 argument is challenged today by the newly found presence of 1000 year old ice cores which completely dispel the lead-lag connection between CO2 and temperature. The 1000 years further compounds the issue as man had no meaningful imprint at that time.I don’t get why NASA — who I have used myself as an authoritative source to prove my own view — is even in the business of climate change.Happy New Year.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      2. rocco

        You have to be extremely naive, ignorant, or duplicitous to write, “I fall to see what any of this has to do with left vs right”.In a day and age where the left has made bathroom choice a left vs right issue, your goofy questions reveal that you are a leftist.I would know as I’m a classically trained and officially certified Leftist Whisperer.

        1. Pete Griffiths

          Another thing I fail to see is how branding someone you don’t know online as ‘naive, ignorant or duplicitous’ contributes anything other than rudeness to the debate.However, given the apparent fact that you didn’t understand my point, permit me to paint a clearer picture. A) of course practically anything can be made for for political debate and some topics are off legitimate political concern. B) the Earth doesn’t care a hot for left or right views on climate change. Coming at the topic from left or right it’s naive. It is science that makes a meaningful contribution here not ideology.

          1. rocco

            Really, do you not have any contact w/the real world, or are you messing w/me?Science, and the research it spawns, became political w/the first dime the governments spent funding research.Of course politics and political ideology have nothing to do w/real science, but it’s the leftists who have always insisted on making science political. Why do you think leftists have been pushing the sacrosanct nature of “scientific consensus” ever since the data involved with man-made global warming didn’t conform to their desired outcome?If you wanted to keep science pure, then you would insist that the government stop funding research.

  10. jason wright

    SF – Moscow in 15 hours. you did well after that.What shoes are you wearing William?

    1. William Mougayar

      You like them? I think Clark’s.

      1. creative group

        William Mougayar:Our choice of footwear appears to be similar for casual.ClarksJosef Seibel Bally’sAllen Edmund’sFarragomoCaptain Obvious!#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

      2. jason wright

        they look quite good from the back of the auditorium. if you want shoes shaped for human feet try Altra.were you wearing a body warmer under your jacket, or was that a kevlar vest for Moscow conditions? 🙂

        1. William Mougayar

          that’s part of the jacket with a zipper in it. you can take it out or keep it. (karl lagerfeld)i will check Altra. thanks.

          1. jason wright

            he’s a talent.

  11. bruno270

    Interesting time to be alive…good analogies and well painted scenario for future trends in crypto!I am very interested in studying how the different governance models and foundation structures will play. In this open source world, network effect is key and to nurture that nothing better than a good governance mechanism…I tried to develop this idea on: https://www.linkedin.com/pu