so here are a few things
The Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates seemingly on a whim, such as a quarter-point increase because "it felt right." A shift from a 1-1.25% to a 4-4.25% range feels monumental, guided by forces that appear anything but deterministic. This is where a comparison to experienced intuition, like a father's gut feeling, becomes relevant. We are often told not to trust non-deterministic systems, like a machine learning model, because their outputs aren't guaranteed. Yet, we rely on them. A seasoned expert's intuition, much like a well-trained algorithm, is often correct, and its convenience is a factor we cannot afford to downplay. It works, more often than not.
My dad gives suggestions based on his gut. he has experience. it is like saying "a ml model is not deterministic so we shouldnt trust ut" , which is true, but it is right good enough times , is convinient enough , and this sentence might downplay convinience, so i would urge the reader to explicitly DONT downplay the convinience factor, PS : more often than not, dad is right
but, does it really get that much deterministic on-chain? what data do we have onchain that we dont have offchain (on chain being blockchain , and all the other mumbo jumbo around it , technically it is inaccurate to call it blockchain , but this writeup is for a broader populace)
The internet is often hailed as the potential bedrock of a "true democracy," a platform for pure, direct governance. I disagree. The notion that direct democracy always yields optimal outcomes is flawed, as it often overlooks the necessity of long-term, strategic thinking, a trait the general populace, focused on immediate needs, may lack.
I disagree with a few ideas.
artifact 1: demonitisation in a country. (like it did in India)
people would have argued against it, but that time, less than 50% of the population had banks. now thats not the case. changing the order requires long term thinking, which the populus lacks. so , if they were to vote in a decentralised system , would it be alright? imagine you, as an 18 year old, voting for or against de-monetization. your dad has a cash flow based business. would you?
chances are if that was the system, a lot of reformative changes wouldn't have been a thing.
But we need to understand the point of democracy. It is not to make very optimised decisions, rather it acts as a hedge against from really bad things happening.
So, even if we transition to the all-hail-internet democracy model. it wont really bring a golden age , better times yes, but they will come with their own price.
Internet allows for more discrete tribalism. Advantages : you have much larger breadth of identities to choose from , disadvantage : too many cooks spoil the broth.
How is the broth spoiled then ?
globalisation is not really that good of a thing. too much and it causes issues. and this has the potential to make it too much
also , more discrete triabl groups , uhh ...... we cannot handle that.
We think in extremes. Right and the left. Yeses and Nos. not a spectrum. and something exists , an idealogy with a corresponding opposition. or the opposition comes from within. See christainity, one of the most user friendly religions. and we have sects from within , that wont sometimes gel well together. now this example might be another myopic output of the binary thinking, but we wont digress too much and move on
point is, more discrete groups, more opposiing sects. it would be like 18th century india, too many kings, divide and rule possibility high.
there are plenty of points of credibility, no qualitiative counter points, or neutralisation points