Technology

59206 readers

2539 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

989

Just 137 crypto miners use 2.3% of total U.S. power — government now requiring commercial miners to report energy consumption (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 9 months ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world

360 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pants have value in any climate.

Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.

You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.

I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of 'depending on them having inherent value'.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise detrimentally affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.

Clothing has inherent value for people.

Containers have inherent value.

Shoes, any number of material goods have inherent value.

Currencies do not.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think you understand what inherent means.

If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

In the context that we're using the phrase and have even explicitly stated, "...to people", these material goods...and food(that's use your craziest argument so far) have inherent value.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Do you think I'm talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?

I'm going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

No, that's my point? Currencies do not have an inherent value to people, only societal, while material goods have inherent value to people while you're pretending they don't while you struggle against a definition.

Struggle!