This, it seems, is merely due to a well-known stubbornness of humans. It's not about this particular evidence being presented to people, but about the way people react in general when presented with evidence that supports or contradicts their opinions. There's a great video showing how it works.
So, to be honest, I don't think there's a reason to explain it based on the particular context of the matter of social mobility.
I don't think the article from 2018 actually supports the claim that it's easier to become wealthy in the US. In fact, if you look at the charts at the beginning of it, the actual probability of moving from bottom to top is 7.5% in the US, but around 11% in the UK and France, for example. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

So they'll basically make Musk's tweets illegal in the EU? Because it surely seems that it should count as tweets meant to manipulate the markets. I wonder how legislation like this can truly be enforced and work properly, given that Twitter and other social media don't belong to any governments. It also seems to be a significant restriction of freedom of speech.
As for crypto firms lobbying for favorable legislation, I think it's for the best. Someone has to push the legislators to accept that cryptos are real and in high demand. I only hope that they're lobbying for conditions that will be favorable both for companies and for crypto users in general.

I respect Jack and his opinions, but it's worth to note that he is very pro-Bitcoin, and I disagree on the matter of Bitcoin replacing the USD. The USA is very proud of the USD, so it's highly unlikely that this country would abandon it unless absolutely necessary. Even if they did, I don't think Bitcoin, a volatile decentralized digital currency, would be their first choice. After all, it's not a currency they can control, and not really a currency that requires banks, so it won't stand well with the financial institutions of the US. Moreover, countries all over the world trust in the USD because they trust in the USA as a strong economy. There's no similar reason to trust in Bitcoin.

I wanted to write about how I think Musk is joking because, while he gave Bitcoin a try with Tesla, he did no such thing with Dogecoin. But then I realized that it's no longer true, as in the middle of December Musk actually said that Tesla will start accepting Dogecoin for merch to see how it goes. In that case, perhaps he does think Dogecoin is the way to go. I don't have anything against Doge, except that it's way overrated. Given that the foundation and thus technical support was reintroduced in August 2021, though, at least it's probably safe to use it. Also, while the coin is inflationary, the inflation rate decreases over time. Still, even if Musk goes above and beyond to make Dogecoin more popular than Bitcoin, it's not going to work.

I think that a decentralized Internet could be a great thing, but given how everyone is already so used to the one we have now, I'm not sure it's possible to switch to a different system (at least, not globally). But the Internet isn't that bad, and given that there are tons of ISPs all over the world, I'd say that access to it IS pretty decentralized, and I don't think it's likely that anyone could be cut off (unless it's a confined space like prison or a totalitarian country like North Korea). Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it's possible to find a workaround and use Bitcoin without the Internet (it would be very difficult, of course, but still).

I'd honestly be okay if Bitcoin were to, say, stabilize forever around $50k. It's a great price, and then people could be more inclined to view it as a form of money rather an investment. But that, of course, wouldn't be good for traders or long-term investors. Regarding people who want the bear market, it's most likely because they feel that the price is too high to invest now, and they want to buy the dip. So for greedy people, it would not be good if Bitcoin never went into the bear market. As for the actual risk of Bitcoin getting there, I think we already saw it go down from more than $60k to $30k, so I think we're past the bear market now. Bitcoin can still move up and down, but given how things have been over the last couple of years, I don't think we'll see a long bear market (similar to that of 2018-2019) anymore. Bitcoin's too popular, and enough people buy the dip for that to repeat.

Game 1:  38' 0-3 Arsenal
Game 2:  38' 2-0 West Ham

Not every chosen date would give the same picture, but the general tendency is indeed caught by such price comparison, and that's the fact that Bitcoin has been growing throughout its history. The Christmas Eve list shows a bit of a regress in 2018 and 2019, as well as in 2014 and 2015, but Bitcoin successfully managed to recover and surpass its former achievements. Another list I like is the list of the lowest price points per year because it shows how low Bitcoin can fall at a given time period (and, thus, the level of trust into it). Here's mine, taking approximations from Coingecko:
2014: $320
2015: $172
2016: $384
2017: $900
2018: $3,200
2019: $3,500
2020: $5,000
2021: $30,000

I've just looked through poll results in Ukraine, and almost half a population (it's a representative sociological poll) believes that the Russian military threat is very real.
I'd also say that the most notable acts of aggression of Russia are probably taking Crimea and supporting the military intervention in the Eastern part of the country, rather than cyberattacks, but ok.
Restricting SWIFT is probably the best economic sanction there can be because Russia depends quite heavily on it, and this will not play well with many influential people as well as the Russian middle-class people, so to speak. If they do invade, I think they'll try to move to an alternative system, and since Russia's big on some products for export, other countries will probably play along and adopt that system for deals with Russia specifically. Also, isn't SWIFT only for international transfers, so all payments inside the country won't be affected? So, while it's big in terms of sanctions, it's probably not devastating for Russia.
As for the war threat, I really hope it wears off or, if it doesn't, that the West won't make the same mistake they made with Hitler, assuming he'd just stop after annexing this or that territory.

I agree with the general sentiment that overprinting isn't new and that is can lead to hyperinflation, but there's a big difference between countries that suffered from it and the USA. The difference, of course, is not in the type of action, but it's in the trust (both within the country and internationally) towards a currency. With the US being a #1 economy, the USD is in very high demand and is valued as an example of stability and reliability. And while dollar lost a lot of value over decades, the majority is okay with this rate of inflation, so unless something changes drastically, it's probably not going to be a problem. I don't think the US can get away with ANY rate of overprinting money, but it can afford more than probably any other country.

It seems that the most popular recommendations are Ethereum and Binance Coin. Both are, of course, very solid, and they don't accidentally have such a high market capitalization. Ethereum is very stably #2 after Bitcoin, and I don't think this will change. As for Binance coin, given the popularity of the crypto exchange, I'm sure it'll stay high as well. However, I'm a bit unsure about Ethereum at the moment due to its plans of transitioning to PoS soon. I think it would be better to see how it goes and make decisions then. After all, there was a time long ago when Ethereum split via a hard fork, and Ethereum Classic, while still an impressive #41 by market cap, is nowhere near Ethereum, and who knows how things will go this time. Someone also recommended DOT, and I wanted to support that. I believe it's one of the most promising altcoins out there because it has a good and important project, caught a lot of attention and is made by a co-founder of Ethereum.

$1 is well below XRP's all-time high point, to be honest. Firstly, the price reached $1.84 in April 2021, and as for the ATH,  it was $3.40 in January 2018. This is something that can be easily verified (see here, for example), so I'm not sure why you wrote it. So compared to Bitcoin, which had the ATH of $20k in 2018 and currently seats at $49k, XRP is still doing way worse. It's important to make such comparisons and focus on the bigger picture rather than what's going on short-term if you're interested in long-term investments.

I agree with jackg's point that only cash is spent immediately. So it's possible to create workarounds to make sure that Bitcoin works as a form of money, but it won't be merely Bitcoin or will involve third parties facilitating the operations. They're doing it in El Salvador, and it's a living proof that it's possible if there's enough interest in it. Also, I think that for big online purchases Bitcoin could be used directly (sending some BTC from customer's address to the address of the owner of the shop) because the fees wouldn't matter if the sum's high enough, and also because when you're buying something online, it's often not crucial for the transaction to be finalized fast.

I don't remember the specific dates, but I think it was early 2014, and I learned about it from a friend whose attention to Bitcoin was caught by mass media popularizing the event of FBI closing Silk Road. Neither me nor my friend heard of darknet before, and we had no idea there was a sort of money that was used there. So my initial stance was wary, I would say. I thought of Bitcoin as a form of money, but the kind of form that's largely used for illegal activities. Then I slowly became warmer to it, seeing that many people here on Bitcointalk were interested in Bitcoin, and yet weren't criminals. So by 2015 I thought of Bitcoin more as of a revolutionary form of money that happens to be used by criminals, but didn't hold it against Bitcoin itself.

Falsifying emails sounds so low, and yet Craig clearly gave it a shot to prove that he is Satoshi. I hope the trial will establish that it was a forgery and, hopefully, Craig will have to take responsibility for this crime. Then again, I kinda thought that he already lost some trials before and was asked to provide half of the money to Kleiman's family, and that's how the whole Tulip Trust fantasy came to be. So, clearly, trials can take a long time, and then there can be new trials if new evidence is put forward, and it's also possible to appeal the decision... So I'm not particularly hopeful about this news, but at least it's something in the right direction.

I was wary of NFTs in the first place because I think they're way overrated and a bit ridiculous, but I thought they were indeed a useful tool for creators to get support by making their own art into NFTs. Somehow, I didn't think about the possibility of others stealing creator's art and selling NFTs... It's a very good case against this whole technology because it shows that not only it fails to protect copyright, it actually helps make money on one's art in a completely new way, and even suggests that someone else owns something.

1) Who will receive the ball first?  49ers
2) Will the 49ers cover the -3.5 point spread?  Yes
3) Game total 44.5?  Over
4) Highest scoring Quarter?  4th
5) 49ers total points?  Even
6) Titans total points?  Odd
7) Jimmy Garoppolo to throw for 250 yards?  Under
8 )Ryan Tannehill to throw for 220 yards?  Under
9) Deebo Samuel to score a TD?  No   
10) Derrick Henry to score a TD?  No

Final Score prediction  24-21 49ers

I remember doubting the Cambridge data about Chinese miners because they looked basically at people who mine openly, and there was always a possibility that they didn't capture those who were trying to hide their mining farms. 109,000 addresses sounds very significant, compared to zero, but does it allow getting accurate hashrate estimates? How accurate is the 20% estimate, and is it possible to confirm or disprove it? So for me, nothing changes. China used to be the center of mining activities. I don't believe it's still playing such a crucial part. But I also never thought all mining stopped in China, so I'm not surprised that there's some underground activity.

I think it's possible only with second-layer solutions. The blockchain cannot handle the amount of transactions that would occur. Also, given the volatility of Bitcoin, I think it would still be useful to set prices in something different (at least, for internal pricing purposes), and then update the actual price in BTC in real time (or every few hours). Using Bitcoin as money won't automatically make the coin more stable. Volatility might just be seen differently. Say, one day you spend 0,0001 BTC on a cup of coffee, and in a few days you can afford to buy three cups for 0,0002. That's how you'd know that the value has changed, and what USD currently does is simply gives a useful reference point, but it doesn't even have to be in fiat.

This sounds like a very generous estimate, but even so it's merely around 4% of the population at best. And I'm sure it accounts for everyone who has some sort of cryptos, not merely for those who actually do anything with their cryptos from time to time. Even if the number of users triples within one year, which I doubt, it'll be less than 15% of the population, which is far from true global adoption. But I won't argue that in a matter of years the situation can change drastically, and cryptos will become as used as smartphones. That being said, people use smartphones many hours per day, whereas I'm not sure about all these crypto users. What also matters is how people use cryptos. If it's crypto trading, I'm not sure it's a big accomplishment.