fnew on Nostr: When I was a junior lawyer at a Big Law firm, my peers and I often used to wonder how ...
When I was a junior lawyer at a Big Law firm, my peers and I often used to wonder how the partners could treat us as they did. Sometimes, I’d arrive at the office on Monday, and not leave the building till Thursday, sleeping one or two hours a night on the floor under my desk, or not at all. We had people in our team fainting in the corridors, and falling downstairs from exhaustion, cracking ribs. Once, I worked for 48 hours without a break, and with no sleep at all. I would have done anything, and told anyone whatever they wanted to hear, if they'd just told me I could go to bed.
We used to think the partners couldn’t possibly treat us like this if they thought we were human; and of course, we were right. We were looking at the question entirely the wrong way round. To the partners, we were not human; we were revenue-generating assets with a fixed cost base (our salaries), and we generated that revenue with our time. So the more revenue they got us to generate over time, the better for them. Only once we came to this realisation did it all make sense.
In the same way, we tend to look at journalism the wrong way round. If we are labouring under the misconception that journalism is a search for truth, then articles like this from Jemima Kelly in the Financial Times can be hard to comprehend. But when we realise that journalism is, fundamentally, no longer a search for truth, but for attention, then it becomes much easier to understand. We have also been looking at this question the wrong way round. Jemima is certainly winning attention for the FT ; witness this post. QED!
Jemima does ask “Is it time for the likes of me to admit we were wrong” about #Bitcoin . Although you can probably guess my answer to this, I actually wanted to address her conclusion, which is that in relation to #Bitcoin, “there is still no there there.”
In her defence, Jemima has, like many of us, grown up in a world where digital scarcity is an oxymoron. Our whole lives, up to the invention of Bitcoin, have been filled with digital abundance, where anything digital can be endlessly replicated without cost. In such a world, it might be forgivable to think that everything digital or intangible behaves in the same way. Most intangible things do – if I send you an email, we both have the same copy, and other copies exist on servers across the internet. If I tell you an idea, we both have the same idea afterwards.
But Bitcoin is not like this.
If I have a Bitcoin, and send it to you, I cannot reverse that transaction, and I lose control of that Bitcoin forever. It cannot be replicated, and it cannot be copied. It is utterly unique, and in sending it, I have lost it.
This is a poor analogy, but Bitcoin can be thought of as an email I can only send once, and a copy of which I cannot retain once sent. It is an idea that vanishes forever from my mind once I tell it to someone else. It is the discovery of digital scarcity in a world of endlessly copiable digital abundance, and we have never seen anything like it before.
If your job, in any sense, involves the pursuit of truth and the exploration of new ideas, then you should seize the chance to explore and understand something like this with both hands. You should not let the chance slip away, or go on repeating the same facile points for more than a decade after the facts have proven you comprehensively and thoroughly wrong.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4fd2c69-c69a-49e4-9e93-d687aa801e87?sharetype=blocked
We used to think the partners couldn’t possibly treat us like this if they thought we were human; and of course, we were right. We were looking at the question entirely the wrong way round. To the partners, we were not human; we were revenue-generating assets with a fixed cost base (our salaries), and we generated that revenue with our time. So the more revenue they got us to generate over time, the better for them. Only once we came to this realisation did it all make sense.
In the same way, we tend to look at journalism the wrong way round. If we are labouring under the misconception that journalism is a search for truth, then articles like this from Jemima Kelly in the Financial Times can be hard to comprehend. But when we realise that journalism is, fundamentally, no longer a search for truth, but for attention, then it becomes much easier to understand. We have also been looking at this question the wrong way round. Jemima is certainly winning attention for the FT ; witness this post. QED!
Jemima does ask “Is it time for the likes of me to admit we were wrong” about #Bitcoin . Although you can probably guess my answer to this, I actually wanted to address her conclusion, which is that in relation to #Bitcoin, “there is still no there there.”
In her defence, Jemima has, like many of us, grown up in a world where digital scarcity is an oxymoron. Our whole lives, up to the invention of Bitcoin, have been filled with digital abundance, where anything digital can be endlessly replicated without cost. In such a world, it might be forgivable to think that everything digital or intangible behaves in the same way. Most intangible things do – if I send you an email, we both have the same copy, and other copies exist on servers across the internet. If I tell you an idea, we both have the same idea afterwards.
But Bitcoin is not like this.
If I have a Bitcoin, and send it to you, I cannot reverse that transaction, and I lose control of that Bitcoin forever. It cannot be replicated, and it cannot be copied. It is utterly unique, and in sending it, I have lost it.
This is a poor analogy, but Bitcoin can be thought of as an email I can only send once, and a copy of which I cannot retain once sent. It is an idea that vanishes forever from my mind once I tell it to someone else. It is the discovery of digital scarcity in a world of endlessly copiable digital abundance, and we have never seen anything like it before.
If your job, in any sense, involves the pursuit of truth and the exploration of new ideas, then you should seize the chance to explore and understand something like this with both hands. You should not let the chance slip away, or go on repeating the same facile points for more than a decade after the facts have proven you comprehensively and thoroughly wrong.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4fd2c69-c69a-49e4-9e93-d687aa801e87?sharetype=blocked