Brought to you by an "Internet liberal-in-the-European-sense-which-is-not-at-all-the-same-as-an-American-liberal"
Because you right nobody is going to trade something useful like food or transportation for a mostly inert metal.
Yes they are. If you have food and think you can part with a little in exchange for something that will be worth something when the crisis blows over, why not? I have a nice painting in my living room which my granddad got from someone in exchange for some food during the "Hongerwinter" of '44. In a crisis that threatens the value of money itself, people might be more inclined to take gold instead of cash in cases where large sums change hands. What happens in a (Mad Max kind of) crisis is not that gold drops in price, but that the price of food and other essentials goes up. And gold is not all that unwieldy; plenty of places here sell 1-gram "coins" currently worth about 50 euro.
GP is right though that it's better to get gold during the good times, when prices are low. If the crisis has already hit, you're too late.
Actually, there are some products that use a gateway service to allow you to connect while away from home, and I am willing to trust these. But I'm not going to hook up a device to my LAN if it comes for a company that is built on data mining.
Of course, revenue from streaming to overseas customers might make up for lost sales to TV stations there. Plenty of viewers here seem willing to pay to watch episodes when they want, especially if they can do so at the same time or soon after it has aired in the USA.
That, and the increasingly pervasive advertisement in the form of pop-overs, commercial breaks that seem to appear more often and last longer, made me turn away from TV and to streaming / downloading. I dunno, with increased competition from other advertising channels, did the stations decide to drop their price and make it up on increased volume? TV stations pretty much crapped the bed they sleep in, I do have subscriptions to HBO and Netflix, but most of the stuff I watch comes from TPB or via Sick Beard.
The one thing that I have found IT depts. around the world to be consistently good at, is saying "no", "we can't", or "you shouldn't".
I was involved in a minor prang some years ago, and called in the cops because the other party was verbally abusive and threatening violence (not uncommon: these people learn from early on that a big mouth will get you anything). The cops show up and the guy starts laying into them... no reaction from the cops. Only when at some point I had enough and told the big guy "fuck you", did the cops turn to me and said "now, now, sir, none of that". Because I was de-de-escalating the situation, see?
This happens all the time here. Some kids attack two passengers at a tram stop, cops show up, kids remain abusive, and the passengers are the ones asked to jog on. To "keep the peace". Arresting the youngsters would only aggravate them further.
Personally I think cops do need to be firm at times. The problem is that when they get told that, they'll religiously apply it and do you for the smallest crosswise remark.
Would you trust a Google household robot to not scan your house and every single product in it, and relaying the data back to its corporate overlord?
If you knew anything about guns, you'd know it only takes a few basic tools and materials to make a functional gun that goes bang without killing its user. You don't need a 3D printer.
The scary/interesting part about 3d printed guns is that you don't have to know anything about guns or metalworking to produce one. Download a good design, print, assemble, charge, and fire.
Of course there's still a few issues, such as: accurate printing in metal still isn't widely available for consumers, operating a 3d printer requires some skill, parts still need finishing, need for ammo, printed guns are prone to failing and/or blowing up when fired, etc. But all of these are problems that can (and probably will) be solved.