You left off hopefully in the above comment

Not "hopefully"; that's a fundamental part of what inflation is. They don't travel in perfect lockstep at all times, but in the long term, they do, because the two are inexorably linked economically. Now, you can impose overall macro policies that have the impact of weakening wages for one group to strengthen it for another group, or whatnot, but that has nothing to do with inflation.

Which is why debt comes with interest

Which is ALSO based on constant-dollar debt. Inflation weakens the buying power of the interest as well.

The upper quintuple has wages increasing much faster then inflation

As mentioned, you can have momentary deviations between goods and wage inflation, and you can also impose policies that benefit one group over another (temporarily or permanently), but none of these have any impact on the fact that goods and wage inflation are fundamentally linked,

To put it another way: a long-term 3% inflation rate - goods and wages - is effectively like getting a 3% discount on your home's mortgage rate. The bank who loaned you the money is the one who loses out - they gave you money with a lot of buying power today, but are getting back money with less buying power in the future. Also losing out, the rich. A person who inherits a ton of money as a child and lives off the interest finds that it's devalued to a tenth of its former buying power late in their life. Unlike the person living paycheck to paycheck who sees their wages rise in lockstep with goods costs.

Inflation effectively takes away money from people who have lots of cash, little debt, and are owed money by others and gives it to those working paycheck to paycheck with lots of debt to others. Inflation is Robin Hood.

Inflation of products happens hand-in-hand with inflation of wages.

What's not linked to inflation? DEBT. Which "the proletariat" drowns in. Inflation weakens debt.

Another thing you can do is sell covered calls or do options spreads on index funds. In general it's poor advice to take an overall bearish position on broader markets (the long term trends are strongly upwards, and net downtrends are rare), but it can be quite reasonable to sell off your potential upside. For example, if a given index is at $1000, maybe instead of just buying shares at $1000 each, you also write $1150-strike options (each covering 100x shares) against the shares you buy, using the extra income to have more total shares. Or you buy $800-strike options and and write $1150-strike options, or something similar. In each case, such a position is saying, "If the market "goes to the moon", I only get moderate profits instead of "to the moon!" profits.... but I gain even if the market stays flat, and am still in the positive even if there are moderate market declines"

The TL/DR, boring stuff. If you want to hedge against a potential market implosion, stagflation, etc. you want to be in boring consumer staples, durable goods, and basic services. Even better if the companies are heavily indebted.

For example, picture a company that has $1B income on sales of essential after COGS but $900M in debt repayments. $100M profit and a lot of risk = low valuation. Then stagflation hits, and the economy racks up a total of 10% inflation. The company sells just as much volume (they're essential goods), but now they're $1,1B in sales due to inflation. But their debt repayments remain $900M, since it's based on a fixed amount of dollars. Now they have $200M profit and a lot less risk = high valuation. And since as a general rule inflation doesn't go into reverse, this is a 2x permanent boost to the company's profits.

Jewelry demand is also intrinsic. The simple fact is that people like owning gold for reasons other than money. There may be trends for how much people desire to have gold stuff, but it has value beyond just as money.

Beyond intrinsic values, only a tiny fraction of Bitcoin investors are doing so because they have some notion that if the economy crashes, they'll be out buying their food with Bitcoin. It's purely a speculative temporary transaction - they put money in when they think it's going to go up and take it out when they think it's going to go down (even if just to buy back at a lower price). They're not storing their wallet locally. They're not engraving it onto a coin and putting it in a safe. It's just a digital slot machine for the vast majority of investors. Which means that bitcoin goes up when investment cash is abundant, and goes down when investment cash is scarce. Bitcoin matches speculative investment cycles; it does not go counter to them (e.g. a hedge against downturns).

This is the opposite of gold, which investors flee when the market is good (going into investments that actually do something to produce income, instead of just sitting there) and flee to when the market turns bad (physical assets that are always in demand and don't suffer from inflation). Gold is in the same category as, say, a warehouse full of toilet paper. The demand exists regardless of the market status, so it becomes a desirable investment when the market is bad and a poor asset when the market is good.

Lol, Wright should be near the absolute bottom of Satoshi candidates.

Another thing is just the massive amount of Dunning-Kruger economics at their core. For example, bragging about how it's deflationary. You don't want a deflationary currency. Deflation, or even a lack of inflation, are economically harmful; it crushes your economy, as people don't want to spend. Economies are maximized by small, predictable, positive inflation. Too much or too little, and fluctuations in it, are harmful . Crypto people don't care about the fluctuations, and celebrate deflation.

Economies are also inherently unstable. You see this all the way back in even Roman times (there are cases where some minor trigger leads to some massive crash that ultimately had to be solved by the emperor stepping in and bailing out the economy). The economy moves so much faster nowadays (both goods and payments), and is thus inherently far less stable. It takes external stabilization which - while imperfect - still helps immensely vs. no stabilization at all. Yet the concept of anything like federal monetary policy enrages crypto people.

It's the worst way you could possibly run an economy, it's pure Dunning-Kruger economics, and yet these people want to run everything.

Scamming is so baked into crypto culture that crypto fans commonly blame the victims for being dumb enough to get caught up in a scam or having their wallet stolen, rather than blaming the criminal or organized the scam. The notion of scam protection (a key part of current financial systems, from credit card fraud rollbacks to bank account insurance) is entirely alien in the crypto world.

UNLESS:

The little guy in the crypto world can get scammed endlessly and it's their fault. But the whales, it's different rules for them. Take The DAO. When a bug led to them getting ripped off, they literally forked the ETH blockchain to make them whole again. Nobody will ever fork the blockchain for you, but they'll do it for the whales.

It's the existing economics dynamics, yet so vastly works. And it's a dystopian version of democracy as well - no longer "one person, one vote", but open oligarchy, where the more you own, the more voting power you have. Linearly, expressly, and proudly.

How have these people not realized yet that Bitcoin moves opposite "reserve assets" like gold? Bitcoin surges during speculative market booms, and crashes when the market is full of fear. It's always been this way. It's the extreme opposite of a reserve asset. People buy Bitcoin on the idea of getting some huge market return. They flee when there's any signs of the market turning south (people needing to take money out / lack of new money flowing in) so that they're not left holding the bag and so they could theoretically buy in lower in the future from the bagholders.

Gold is just the opposite. When the market is roaring, most people don't want to be left holding gold, which just sits there doing nothing; they want to be in the market and getting those growth returns. But when there's panic in the market, people flee to physical assets with sustainable demand for the asset itself. It doesn't even have to be something like gold. For example, if you're worried about stagflation, a good company to invest in would be, say, a heavily indebted timber producer - people keep needing wood regardless of how the market is doing, while inflation shifts the balance between the company's growing-dollar revenue and fixed-dollar debt. Things related to basic foodstuffs, consumer staples (P&G and the like), essential services (companies like Waste Management), and so forth, continue to get demand during downturns, their nominal income rises from inflation while their debt does not, etc, and so people flee to them as a refuge.

Bitcoin doesn't work like that. I'm sure theres a good number of extreme bitcoin bugs who have panic-hordes of bitcoin. Wallets saved on their local computer, or maybe even written out onto physical assets and stored in a safe. But that's not the overwhelming majority of BTC investors. They just put money into some trading app and buy BTC when they think it's going to go up and sell it when they think it's going to go down. Their goal isn't to hide BTC under a mattress, or sell it to someone who wants to make coins or a necklace or whatnot out of it. And when the flow of new investment chokes off due to a downturn, and some people have to sell due to the downturn, the price turns down, and everyone flees to avoid being the last one out. They don't want the coins, they want the profit possibility.

All spent playing "Guess The Magic Number!" over and over and over again.

Yeah, sanctions busting, online crime, black market sales, etc are the use case of cryptocurrency as a currency, rather than just as a collectible.

IMHO, one of the best-argued cases for Satoshi Nakamoto is Paul Le Roux (a talented cryptography coder and an international crime lord), specifically to make it easier to accept payments and move money around in his criminal empire) (and the reason that Satoshi never spent his Bitcoin is that Le Roux was arrested and his computers seized)

Some tulips have edible petals. Not something you'd want to make a meal out of, but chefs will add them to salads and the like.

(I suspect there's still some of the toxic alkaloids in them, just not enough to be problematic)

Just to give a sense as to how latency (and bandwidth) sensitive model training is, you get a massive slowdown by splitting training a model across two GPUs on the same motherboard (just different slots) vs. a single GPU with more VRAM. We're not even talking "across a networking connection here", just within the same computer. Even NVLink is a big training bottleneck.

Yes you can if latency isn't an issue which it isn't if you are crunching data to train models.

I'm sorry, but this is false. Model training is EXTREMELY latency-sensitive. Which is the reason why datacentres are built at such huge scales (straining local resource supplies) rather than smaller datacentres spread out over a larger area.

a large radiator sticking out on the back of it for added cooling and thermal management is a solved problem

To reiterate, it's not a question of what's physically possible, it's a question of how things affect your economics. To repeat, you can't talk about economics gains from solar power in space without talking about economic costs of more complex thermal handling (and many other things) in space.