In reality, Young people are not taking more risks. They are simply refusing to pay for the illusion of safety.

Why would you sacrifice your best years for a corporate job if that job is not likely to be there in five — let alone ten — years? Why put your money on safe assets when they are guaranteed to diminish your purchasing power? Why would you trust the government to catch you if you fall when they can’t fulfil basic functions regardless?

Interesting thoughts. Source

Below is an insightful comment I found on Reddit:

Once a company acquires a lease, it then carries those subsurface reserves as assets on its balance sheet. By doing this, a company can immediately improve its overall financial health, boost its attractiveness to shareholders and investors, and even increase its ability to borrow on favorable terms.

While industry leaders have suggested it was “absurd” to think companies would continue to shell out millions of dollars in rental fees and lease acquisitions solely to pad their balance sheets,6 the relatively low cost of federal land nonetheless provides a strong incentive for companies to do just that. Because of this, companies have the potential to directly benefit from amassing these undeveloped reserves through federal land leases, while the U.S. taxpayer loses out on revenue that could—and should—be generated from wells actually producing oil and gas products.

Meanwhile, these undeveloped leases tie up land that the federal government would otherwise manage for conservation, recreation, or other beneficial uses as required under the BLM’s multiple-use mandate.

Even as the average annual price for oil produced in the United States tripled in a decade, the minimum price the federal government charged for leases remained stagnant. In fact, for decades, the minimum bid to lease public land for fossil fuel production has been just $2 an acre. That’s a cup of coffee.

Annual rental fees, which companies pay to hold and explore federal lands before production, are just as low. And the royalty rate for oil and gas produced onshore has remained at just 12.5 percent since 1920. Those bargain prices give private companies a windfall while depriving American taxpayers of a fair return from energy production.

Instead, the public has been left to pay for many of the social and environmental costs of fossil fuel operations, from road damage to respiratory problems.

I wonder how the economic setup of the news media industry drives the tone of the coverage.

I’ve been reading about long covid but deep down I also wonder the impacts of long Brexit.

One consists of an entire runtime environment: an application, plus all its dependencies, libraries and other binaries, and configuration files needed to run it, bundled into one package. By containerising the application platform and its dependencies, differences in OS distributions and underlying infrastructure are abstracted away.

…The other keeps my lunch fresh.

If I was the leader of a sovereign state hearing about China banning BTC mining and only considered the economic incentives – I would entice the 360k TH/s Dalian hydro-powered operation to set up shop on my turf. That’s 750 BTC ($40m) a month added to GDP.

We’d take it from there:
– strategic placement of operations to warm buildings with output heat
– non-zero sum flowing into the community via payroll and expanding the tech-focused labour pool
– partner with miners to invest in the energy infrastructure, nudged towards sustainable options

Note that this is possible from indirect miner involvement, imagine what happens when actively partaking in the Web3 movement to build decentralised, democratised, and far more resilient and inclusive platforms. Now consider, 750 BTC is only 3% of block subsidies per month (in this halving interval). The game-theoretical properties of the protocol makes it difficult to ignore.

That’s it. That’s the post. It’s already a lot. Tech is blindingly fast and branches out like a merkle tree. I’m trying to keep up.