whose value is supported by the "bubble" of sustained collective belief in its value.

Sometimes that belief is related to belief in the value and stability of a particular economy that uses that currency for accounting of its transactions.

Oh and with the amount of lending (of non-existent money), a lot of the belief amounts the belief that most loans will be paid back with future plausible earnings from future activity or future exploited resources.

Sometimes, as in the most popular cryptocurrencies, the belief is based on a theory that a good chunk of the world economy's transactions will transition to being accounted for in the cryptocurrency (e.g. ETH? or a multi-fiat-currency-stabilized stablecoin perhaps?), or based on a theory that the mathematically guaranteed scarcity (of bitcoin) will result in it being accepted as "digital gold" store of value. This is actually no more outlandish a belief than that the shininess and scarcity of gold give it inherent value.

Is it a moving average though?

Interestingly also, planetary physics takes precedence over water rights, whether governments and lawyers agree to that or not.

Not offended, sorry it came across that way. Just genuinely curious.

My general point is that the overwhelming majority of non-OS-writing applications do not require coding in the fastest available language (assembler, as you rightly point out.)
And so, speaking of programming in general, automatically safer languages are generally going to be far preferable, and will reduce bugs and cybersecurity vulnerabilities considerably.

Whereas in the now distant past, it might have been reasonable to choose C / C++ for e.g. 50% of application writing, for performance reasons, and deal with the massive cybersecurity risks of the inevitable sloppy, undisciplined programming / easy-to-make errors among the overall programmer population, now it is probably less than 1% of code that requires this bare-metal performance as its most significant attribute. So the risk is not worth taking for most projects.

In the bad analogy department, you COULD still drive a car without seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, auto-collision-avoidance braking, and crumple-zones, because you are a good driver and such a car is lighter and 2% faster, but would you recommend the majority of the population drive such obsolete more dangerous vehicles? We've moved on in car design, and also programming language design.
 

Yeah the biometric data is relatively immutable.

So that's why only secondary identifiers (analogy: session keys) should be used in day to day authentication / authorization in third party systems.

Ideally, there should be no way back from the secondary identifier to the source biometric hash.

I feel in a technically semi-literate way (notice waving hands) in the area that ZKSNARKs (not just simple hashes) may eventually play a role in these kind of "one directionally associated" or non-leaking associated relationships of more transient identifiers to more definitive passport-like ones.

kind of escaped out of hexadecimal there for a brain-fart moment lol.

That's not correct. Here's a unique identity:

0xA4D38FFL9W742V

I can track what this does and what reputation it has.
By the way it was generated (the system it is a valid public key in), I can know that it corresponds uniquely to one of the unique humans that has recently existed.

That doesn't tell me who this is, even if I'm the entity that validated their unique human-ness, generated a unique key-pair for them, told them to use the public key publicly, and keep the private key private, then forgot (did not store) the unique key pair.

Yes there are de-anonymization organizations that can correlate usage patterns of any digital id and eventually tie the id to more straightforward human identifiers like email address, name etc. That's an issue with anyone's use of a persistent number standing in for themself for too long.

We clearly need a system of evolving, tracking-eluding random identifier sequences, using zero-knowledge proofs in some clever manner, rather than persistent single numeric identifiers. But again, this de-anonymization problem applies to every anonymous id number you use for anything. It's not unique to worldcoin.

I'm not "one of them". Just speaking in support as an independent observer, on principles of freedom where the balance of harm vs benefit has not been clearly demonstrated yet.

If you got that surmise wrong, what else do you routinely get wrong when pondering about the world around you I wonder? Or you should wonder.

The thing about this is it is opt-in. No one has a gun to anyone's head forcing them to get a iris-scan-based world id.

The government overreach is governments not permitting people to opt in to something like this.

It's a little bit like the government banning the opt-in possession of a bitcoin, because "Oh the potential horror!"

It's just the fear-dominated, terrified of novelty half of the population, with some government power, dictating to and trying to fence in the explorer half of the population. Each half of the population stay in your own lane to your own comfort level, I say.

This is true of any kind of digital id. Or stolen credit card number etc.

We need a way where on finding out your digital id has been doxxed, you can get a new one, with different salt, with a revocation method for the validity of the old one. Similar to how TLS trust-root certificates can be invalidated.

The information they store is, roughly speaking, a fuzzy hash of iris image data. The original iris image cannot be recreated from it.

No other personally identifying info is stored with it (e.g. name, email, crypto keys etc).

So the only thing it's good for is if you walk back in to a worldcoin scanning center to try to create a second, different unique anonymous id in worldcoin, it would recognize that you already have one and reject creation of a new different one for you.

It verifies your unique human-ness but nothing else about you. You are then given a wallet id based on that, but Worldcoin organization does not maintain the association between your issued wallet id (and any pseudonymous actions you take with it) and your iris fuzzy hash code. They only retain the iris fuzzy hashcode, to be able to refuse to issue you a different wallet each time you walk in..

by another nanny state.

FFS give adult humans in the 21st century some f**king autonomy to make their own decisions.

Worldcoin is an anonymous service verifying only that the same identity is doing things at various places and times and services. The organization operating it retains no identifying data for each person who signs up.

Innovation is under serious threat by the dullards.

Given that computers are now more than 1,000,000 times faster than when C was invented, what kind of code are you working on that you care about tight-inner-loop execution benchmarks?

Do you work on real-time attitude control of hypersonic aircraft/missiles?

Do you work on 8K graphics ray-tracing?

Do you write SSD read-write code?

I'm curious what kind of code wouldn't be perfectly fine at 1/4 the speed of C or even 1/10th.

Bottlenecks these days are usually in distributed systems serialization / synchronization, or waiting for persistent storage, etc. Not in application code.

Most of the data is not transmitted by the vehicles to Tesla without the data sharing permissions being approved in the car's UI.

Best not to guarantee stuff you know shit about. (Is a policy that will serve you well.)

That is exactly it.

End result will be USA sells legacy Detroit-big-3 cars only to itself (and Teslas to everyone). While China sells most of the cars bought by the rest of the world with the exception of a few US vassal (toady) states that adopt US-style rules.