I enjoy carbonated water, my friends say it’s a weird old person thing

Not yet, but I think we might see age reversal drugs in the not so far future.

Why are you so skeptical? I could spend 40 years doing:

• hikes
• walks in nature
• camping
• volunteer work
• going to the beach
• reading
• doing diy projects
• helping others
• learning new things
• exploring my country
• etc

There is so much more to life than work and paid services.

And yes, this is a privileged position, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

65% of your spendings, addmittedly this question is mostly relevant to people that spend at least a somewhat above the median, where they can reduce their lifestyle by 35% and still live, just frugally.

I’m not sure what you mean by significant hobbies, but personally with the exception of one, all of my hobbies are cheap/free.

Both. I always have been and probably always will be easily terrified with horror media.

You can do a lot on a frugal budget

Either x-men or just less people with genetic diseases. Not sure which one though…

Same as the odds that a higher being (a god) exists.

Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. All arguments for it speculative and subjective.

People claim that it is the most likely option because eventually tech will be so advanced that we could make a world simulation, and then we would make multiples, and therefore the probability of this not being a simulation is low.

This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could) it also assumes that if they could, we would create world simulators (Why? Parts of it sure, but all of it?) And it assumes that sentient beings inside the simulation could never know it (Why?)

It is as pointless as arguing about god.

Damn, sounds like a dream

Good point, but also my question is pointless if you are already living frugally, because that would basically be “would you like more time and money?”

“Look kid, all you need to know is that up until 2016 the world was simpler, but then they killed a gorilla which lead to the rise of fascism in 2025”

I personally use proton and even that can cause issues sometimes.

It’s sad but in reality your best bet is a common email provider such as Google, Microsoft, etc.

You can use gmail with a custom domain and get both benefits, or you could go your own way and accept that it will reduce some of your potential opportunities (that’s what I choose)

Are you urine? Cuz pee my heart

Nothing is perfect, but once a blockchain network is big enough it becomes near impossible to overtake.

Maybe currently, if the US government really wants to, they could dedicate a few trillion dollars to take over the bitcoin network. But it would make no sense to put that much effort into what would be mostly pointless. And if bitcoin ever reaches a point where it is a full on threat to the dollar then it’s network would probably be too big for any nation to overtake alone.

So you are not wrong in theory, but in practice it is near impossible.

Like most of the tech bro industry, they take something with real value, completely misunderstand it, creates fake value, pumps.

LLMs are awesome, but the current AI industry is terrible and completely misses the actual value of LLMs.

NFTs are actually a great way to digitally prove ownership, basically the future of digital ownership certificates.

Crypto is a way to make money for the people by the people, and not for the rich, by the rich, through the people.

Blockchain is the core idea that makes crypto and NFTs possible. You can think of it as a decentralized DB, it’s useful because it means that the majority controls the data and not a centralized authority.

Imagine that the government decided to print a million dollars and give it to some politician, it’s small enough to not be noticed by the market, but it still devalues the money. They could only do it because they own the money management system. In Blockchain each transaction is confirmed by external parties (often multiple ones) and it has to align with the already existing db (which everyone has a copy of) so in that scenario if the government tries to “print” money it will be conflicting with the existing db and it will not be accepted, so they will have to either continue with an incompatible db (making it as worthless as monopoly money) or cancel the transactions by realigning with the common db.

Blockchain is not meant to be a database like the ones in web servers, it is meant to be a database for a consensus of users.

Politics, economics and war are all hard to predict for long term, but just on the count of climate change kids born today are screwed.

What is more secure, a secret knock or an actual lock?

The lock is something that everyone can lookup, research and learn about. Sure, it means that people can learn to lockpick, but a well designed lock can stumble even the best lockpicks.

A secret knock is not secure at all, it sounds secure but in reality it is just obscure, and if anyone learns it or it’s simple enough to guess, it becomes meaningless. Even a bad lock will show signs that it was picked.

So that’s an analogy, here is the actual explanation:

Let’s assume we have a closed source product named C and an open source product named O and that the security and quality of the code is the same. Both products are compiled and have been in active development for years. Both products have a total of 2 different people going over the code change of each new version, one person writes it, another reviews the code and approves it. After years of development you probably have about 10 people in total who have actually seen the code, anything that they missed will go unnoticed, any corners that they decided to cut will be approved, any bad decisions that they made will not be criticized. Here is where C and O differ: C will forever stay in this situation, only getting feedback rarely from researchers who found vulnerabilities and decided to report them. O will get small parts of it reviewed by hundreds of developers, and maybe even fully reviewed by a few people. Any corners that O cuts will be criticized, any backdoor that O tries to implemented will be clear to see. C on the other hand has one small advantage, bad actors will have a harder time finding vulnerabilities in it because it is compiled and they would have to reverse engineer it, while O is clear for the bad actors to read. But, bad actors are a very small minority, any vulnerability in O is far more likely to be caught by good actors, while C is very unlikely to be reversed by any good actors at all and so if it has any vulnerabilities, they are far more likely to be found by bad actors first.

And it is important to note the conflict of interests that often exists in closed source software. A company that sells a product for profit and believes that its code is hidden, has very little interest in security and almost no interest in end user security, but if the code is not hidden, the company has an interest to produce reasonably secure code to maintain a reputation.

So almost always, open source leads to safer code for all parties involved.

I mean… Look around? Maybe billionaire is a new thing, but it is just modern royalty. We still have kings, they just got better PR.

I think this is also a big part of the issue.

Many countries are only recently in the phase of over consumption, meaning that parents and grandparents are often teaching kids early on to not waste food in a extremely unhealthy manner once you are in the context of over consumption.

For some people their parents grew up in a time where wasting the last few bites of a meal, or letting food go bad, or not eating food that in front of you would actually be bad. Like, if you didn’t eat the last few bites you are wasting a valuable resource that you might not get the privilege of eating tomorrow.

But for example in many parts of the US right now, you are much better off learning to throw food away than to learn to force feed yourself.

It is a shame that the world is like that, but the reality is that for many people today, being okay with throwing away food is an actually important part of staying healthy.

I guess being unable to lose weight?

It is ridiculous how privileged it is in the context of human history to actually struggle with too much calories.