First of all, when the GP says "you are more likely to be in a slow block", it means "you are more likely to be in a slow block, relative to how many blocks there are".
In your example, if you pick a block at random, you have 1/21 chance of being in a slow block. If you pick a block by choosing a moment in time at random, you have 1/3 chance.
It is obviously not true that with any distribution you would be absolutely more likely to be a slower block.
Secondly, your last sentence seems to give a reason which doesn't fully make sense, and certainly isn't 'the opposite' of the given reason. Slow blocks of course have longer average wait-times than fast blocks. But this affects both the 'time-weighted' average and the 'block-weighted' average.
If you think that slow blocks have a longer wait-time than fast blocks, but that slow blocks are less likely than fast blocks (in the time-weighted average), shouldn't that make the time-weighted average LOWER?
Splitting a long block into two shorter (but still long) blocks doesn't make you less likely to be in the covered interval, but does reduce the average weight time.
But you are waiting 2x the average, because the average waiting time should be half of the period.
Consider buses which arrive every ten minutes, exactly. You arrive at the bus stop at a random time. How long should you expect to wait? Not 10 min but 5 min, on average. You are equally likely to arrive at any point during the 10 minutes wait.
Now change the buses to a Poisson process with mean rate 1 bus every 10 minutes. Now you arrive during an interval of average length 20 min, but wait on average 10 min.
The GP said that he has severe emotional problems, related to childhood trauma around spending money and also broke down when buying the bed.
Why are you criticizing his choice of bed? You are showing a lack of empathy to the poster's actual point, which isn't "Help me find a cheap bed". It feels like you're just looking for an opportunity to brag about how good at buying beds you are. Even if you're not, your response doesn't say anything about the article or add to the wider discussion in any way.
I can relate to both mindsets. I stay more frugal despite not needing to, so $700 is a lot to me. But the vitriol of saying "thou shall" is what I dislike. The psychological trauma of fearing the spending of any money is real ... but I'd rather have a dose of it rather than none at all.
But who does it redistribute the wealth from? Is it broke people, people working several jobs on minimum wage, people who have to use food pantries, people trapped in debt? Not at all. It's people who already have a bunch of liquid assets to play with. People who have earned decent money, saved it and previously were invested in the stock market, gold, savings accounts. Not necessarily rich people (not just rich people), but well-off people who have money they don't need sitting around.
I am young, have a high income and a tiny net worth. I got lucky by buying a tiny amount of bitcoin a few years ago purely because I was interested in the tech. There's lots of things about my situation, and the situation of other people in my society which are unfair. But baby-boomers with nest eggs cashing me out because they feel entitled to make an easy buck and are buying something they don't understand doesn't seem like the most important injustice.
> But baby-boomers with nest eggs cashing me out because they feel entitled to make an easy buck and are buying something they don't understand doesn't seem like the most important injustice.
That's condescending, hypocritical bullshit. Why do you feel entitled to "cashing out" on their savings because you're tech savvy?
> Not necessarily rich people (not just rich people), but well-off people who have money they don't need sitting around.
This is straight up delusional. I'm appalled that you would spend so much time describing who you think invests in cryptocurrencies, just to justify yourself profiting off them. Actually, most people who invest in the stock market know better than to get involved with bitcoin. Most people who hyped its value lately are the kind of people who have no idea what's about, invest poorly and have fewer funds. [1]
So yes, most likely your profit came from "broke people, people working several jobs on minimum wage, people who have to use food pantries, people trapped in debt". At least don't try to pretend it's otherwise.
> Is it broke people, people working several jobs on minimum wage, ... people trapped in debt?
At least in Europe, it is not uncommon that bank/pension/state funds (in effect: everybody's money) buy in latest to these stocks.
Allocating resources in society is a hard problem, and capital markets overall provide a valuable service in deciding where resources should go. But when some of these markets function more or less like a lottery (or ponzi scheme), I don't see why a society should support (or even worse: idolize) its participants.
