It's wrong in the sense of "not exactly right", but for these purposes I'd say the mass is practically constant. We're talking over the lifetime of society, not the Solar system. (As a physicist, one thing you learn is the power of approximation -- don't waste too much time on measurements that won't really affect the end result.)

First of all, let's consider the classical (non-relativistic) mass of Earth. I understand it's increasing due to meteorites etc., basically the same process that made Earth in the first place, but much slower nowadays. I think you can see it's not contributing much to world economy.

Of course, my main error was in saying that mass would have much to do with economy in the first place. Energy is of course much more important; the flow of low-entropy radiation from the Sun, and the roughly equal higher-entropy radiation into space. This flow isn't changing very much over the lifetime of a society, either.

Also bear in mind the exponential nature of the so-called economic growth, i.e. doubling every N years. Now if the surface area of Earth (which is what limits both the radiation flux and things like agriculture) were to double every N years, then we could have real economic growth at the same rate. This is why we can basically ignore the _relatively_ small changes in mass and radiation above, as they are dwarfed by any exponential growth over time.

Of course, we keep improving technology to get more usable energy/food from this limited surface area per year. But the physics does exhibit some hard limits.

Bitcoin "mining" stopped when Satoshi's second-in-command moved on to other projects. His last name is Finnish for "ore".

Nowadays, we call it "verifying transactions" as it should have been from the very beginning. It's not about being a greedy gold-digger, it's about maintaining a network to provide a service, and it's a job like any other, with a reasonable pay.

This. Exactly what I think about altcoins, the outsourced R&D division of Bitcoin Inc... in an ideal world. The hard truth is that it takes a hard fork for any real change in the Bitcoin network, and it's hard to see a consensus coming up with all the alternatives.

The real (crypto)?anarchist utopia is about different co-existing currencies, may the best coin win, at least for their 15 blocks of fame. Exchanges are a bottleneck for now, as well as old-money investors who get stuck on certain coins. The REAL future is with Boolberry.. for now :-j

OTOH, the network effect ensures a place for Bitcoin for a good while. It's still the gold standard against which other cryptocurrencies are measured. It may well remain as a reserve/reference currency, as more agile coins take the stage for daily commerce and feel the buzz of technological development.

Bitcoin is like the central cardioid in Mandelbrot Set, spreading love for the hairy fringe of the new mathematical frontier.

Just get a stand-up desk and be done with it. I'm not saying it will completely replace the need for all exercise, but it goes a long way. It'll also help you take real breaks from the computer.

This would be great if it happened at once for all mankind. It's the gradual transition that's hard, as some people will still be thinking in terms of protestant work ethic, capitalism etc.

My usual argument is that society is like an engine whose fuel efficiency is improving all the time. As a scientist/engineer I think better fuel efficiency is great. People could work less hours for the same gain, if only the system would allow it -- traditionally, you're either fully employed as a respectable member of the society, or unemployed scum. Basic income could be used to smooth things out, but IMHO it would be much better to divide work itself more evenly.

IOW, only trust people after witnessing them under brain surgery.

(Or vasectomy / cardiac surgery etc. depending on the person.)

Try immersing it in water.

It's an interesting distinction which we weren't able to make a couple of decades ago. When I was a kid, telephones were associated with a location rather than a person. When mobile phones became mainstream in the 1990s, a lot of the old folks regarded them as just fancy toys. To me, a mobile phone just made so much sense, because you usually need to call a person, not a place. OTOH, in many (business) settings it does make sense to call a place rather than a person. It's great to have such choice.

IMHO, a protocol is all about the signal lines. For example, you could add USB lines into a classic serial port, without changing the shape and keeping it backwards compatible.

Besides, it's obvious that USB3 is not as backwards-pluggable as you'd expect. New B and micro plugs won't fit in the old B/micro sockets, even though they still contain the old wiring. It's not surprising, because there's a limit to how many new wires you can cram into the old shape.

Imagine what'll happen with USB4. How much hardware do you think they can keep cramming into the same old plug? Meanwhile, the B/micro plugs would keep getting bigger and bigger.

IMHO, the way USB3 handles backwards compatiblity is just ugly. All this extra hardware, including wiring that complicates board design, just to maintain an illusion of compatibility. Even if the compatibility is provided by keeping the old parts, while bolting the new, incompatible design on the side (as is obvious in the micro plug).