It's not all noise. Being able to live, work, or study anywhere in the Schengen zone has tremendous value. But it doesn't show up in GDP numbers. Brexit harmed the young people of UK, and they hate it.
Regarding the UK specifically, very few people chose to study in the EU when they could while many in the EU wanted to study in the UK. British unis are a huge asset to the country that also brings a lot of money from foreign students. Same for young people wanting to come work in UK/London.
Frankly, I think the "harm" done to young British people is vastly overblown and more symbolic than actual.
They voted 'remain' but, as said, what they feel and what the facts are are not the same thing. They might be pissed off that they cannot just go study in the EU anymore but the fact is that they didn't when they could...
Even today, they can obviously register to study abroad, just need a visa like everyone else, and considering the English unis' tuition fees they would actually save money by doing so but hardly anyone does because of the language barrier (same as when the UK was in the EU).
So IMHO it is a case of FOMO.
It's the EU students who have lost out because they must now pay hefty tuition fees (like £35k+ a year) if they wish to study in British unis so most of them have given up. British unis don't really care because they are in high demand globally, anyway.
Your response amounts to: ignore what the people affected value, only pay attention to a cherry picked number. Even the number you cherry picked is only valued by people who resent students coming to the UK and think they ought to pay steep tuition fee fees, which is just weird. Who benefits? Certainly not the students who would otherwise gain an international perspective.
I have not cherry-picked anything and I think assessing what people value has to look at how they act and behave, not just at what they say.
Not many UK students choose to study in Europe (I suspect in large part because of the language barrier). That was true when the UK was in the EU and it is true now when doing so is not super hard and would save them money. So maybe they valued the idea of being able to 'just go study in Europe' but they didn't do it much... Hence, minimal actual harm.
> Even the number you cherry picked is only valued by people who resent students coming to the UK and think they ought to pay steep tuition fee fees, which is just weird
I have no idea how you got that idea from my previous comment...
It is difficult to discuss anything related to Brexit.
I don't know about that. Canada also tracked the UK more closely than the US and it was not involved in Brexit[1]. The US just did really well during this time.
First we gave LLMs access to bash commands. Now we give them access to customized commands which they can reuse. It's English language extending its claws into deterministic programming language. Now can we please have backtracking and dynamic programming like thinking loop built into English language or such orchestration prompts.
Making up a bigger fraction doesn't mean that transaction fees will increase over time.
For L1 fees to actually increase over time, we need increased L1 throughput. Without that, increased demand for transactions causes more batching of transactions (mostly between exchanges).
Given the failure of BCH for pseudo-religious reasons I don't have much hope.
You do realize that they get frozen only because of the fiat system regulations/laws?
These exchanges freeze accounts in fear of what governments might do to them if they weren't cautious/suspicious enough. They have no economical interest in freezing account otherwise, that's one less customer trading and paying them fees.
It's funny that it just re-invented stuff already used for old world finances, and just invented escrow with more moving parts while still requiring non-compromised 3rd party.
Not really. Smart contracts ensure that if all the conditions are met, the contract will be fulfilled. They achieve that through decentralisation: no one person can decide whether or not it will be fulfilled.
No real world contract can replicate that - you have to go to court to enforce a breach of contract and it isn't certain you will succeed. Even if you succeed the other party can refuse to comply, and then you need to try to enforce, which also may or may not work.
On the contrary, I think many real world contracts replicate the property that a bunch of people have to sign off on it and no one person decides whether it will be fulfilled.
> Not really. Smart contracts ensure that if all the conditions are met, the contract will be fulfilled.
Not really. Smart contracts ensure that if all the conditions IN THE CHAIN ITSELF are met, the contract will be fulfilled.
"The product you paid got delivered" is not on chain. It can't be verified without trusted party putting that info in the chain. Sure, it can be made into multiple entities confirming if needed but it is still dependent on "some people" rather than "true state of reality.
> No real world contract can replicate that - you have to go to court to enforce a breach of contract and it isn't certain you will succeed.
The oracle can lie and be unreliable too. It would be great system if you mangaged a video game where the currency system can see the objective state of the world, but ethereum can't, needs oracle(s).
In both cases you basically rely on reputation of oracle, or escrow company in case of old money transaction, to have high degree of safety.
I'm sure there's a little truth to both, and noise from all kinds of other factors.
reply