But it takes a lot of time to mine cuz it involves a lot of things and will that not create a problem when there is need of gold

Back when countries all existed on the gold standard, governments needed to be able to back their currency with huge volumes of gold in reserves. In order to trust that a government's money was worth anything they needed to have sufficient gold in reserves they could potentially pay it out if money holders wanted gold instead. However, most governments began transitioning off the gold standard around the 1970s meaning that they had no need to hold enormous gold in reserves.

So why is the United States still holding so much gold when Canada is not? It costs a ridiculous amount of money to hold onto gold. You need a facility to keep it in, you need to guard it and the gold doesn't really do anything for you while you're holding it. Canada has realized that instead of paying all this money to hold, they can sell it and buy bonds, assets that don't cost any money to keep and actually make you money. The United States on the other hand keeps most of its reserves in Fort Knox, a military facility that they would still be paying for with or without gold because it guards numerous other secrets.

Quote from David Dodge, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and Senior Advisor at Bennett Jones LLC.

> "[The] issue is quite clear, that it costs to hold gold, whereas holding U.S. or Chinese or Euro bonds yields you a return," said Dodge. "…That was a strong view. And a view that our international monetary system was in a place that was sufficiently robust, that holding this antique instrument of stability called 'gold' really didn't make any sense."

So you can hold on to gold, but it costs money to house it, secure it, etc and it may or may not increase in value, whereas you can get something on paper/digitally that will gain value and not cost as much to maintain.

[removed]

Canada’s is sitting on lots of gold. It’s just in the ground. If people are buying what you can dig up, then print that money.

Twenty years ago the joke was that the flight crew of the future was going to be a pilot and a dog. The dog was there to keep the pilot from touching anything, and the pilot was there to feed the dog.

there's been fatal accidents caused by bad software in planes, and for relatively "simple" controls. As a programmer myself, I'm never getting on a plane without a human pilot.

Quite frankly the pilot is not the most expensive thing on that aircraft. A 737 burns $2100/hour of fuel at cruise, more during takeoff. Total operating cost of a 737 might average $4000-8000/hour factoring in all costs. And you want to save $400 by not having a crew?

Also the average payout for an aviation death is like $5-10million. So you’re talking about something like $1 billion in wrongful death liability alone per aircraft. Your insurance carrier isn’t going to be happy about that decision to save $400/h in crew costs. So whatever those premiums go up by has to be less than the $400 you’re saving.

Yup.

[removed]

Bruh, there is no definitive proven answer to why. They’re all theories with limited data.

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 does not allow guessing.

Although we recognize many guesses are made in good faith, if you aren’t sure how to explain please don't just guess. The entire comment should not be an educated guess, but if you have an educated guess about a portion of the topic please make it explicitly clear that you do not know absolutely, and clarify which parts of the explanation you're sure of (Rule 8).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. These usually include the poster's own opinion and bias, but do not always - there is overlap between this and parts of Rule 2. Note that this specifically includes false premises.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

ELI5 does not allow guessing.

Although we recognize many guesses are made in good faith, if you aren’t sure how to explain please don't just guess. The entire comment should not be an educated guess, but if you have an educated guess about a portion of the topic please make it explicitly clear that you do not know absolutely, and clarify which parts of the explanation you're sure of (Rule 8).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

[removed]

[removed]

> I can't imagine that people who actually work with software would trust these things.

There's a whole different genre of software when it comes to life-critical or mission-critical software. The sort where a bug could kill people or cost millions of dollars. Real engineering. Used to work on OBOGS which let fighter pilots breath. If you have a bug and the thing stops generating oxygen, the pilot has about 30 seconds to notice and pull an emergency lever to switch to the emergency tank. DO-178 would be the super-fun process to make this sort of software. And yes, you have to start worrying about stray cosmic rays flipping random bits in your memory. Lots of CRC checks and watchdogs and heartbeats. The time to reboot a system is important if the pilot can't breath in the meantime.

But if you ever.... drive a car on cruise control, ride an elevator, get an X-ray, then you've trusted your life to some lines of code.

> Some of them land themselves, but only in nice conditions. The new and fancy ones land themselves in mediocre or poor conditions.

Uh, you have that exactly backwards. The worse the conditions, the more that autoland is advised by the FAA

> Auto-landing tech in aircraft is very rare.

Wut? All airliners have it.

We have an anti-drone system in the military called the DRAKE. It allows us to kill drones/send them back to the sender. Now imagine if someone could kill/return to sender an automated 737 with 300 souls on-board.

Would be a nightmare, especially with the amount of air traffic all over the world.

Which means that it’s not actually a backup, because if there’s some sort of electrical short that causes the connection to fail, that plane will crash.

Autopilot systems are routinely used today, so that pilots don’t have to have hands on the control for the entire flight. In any situation, or during takeoff/landing, the pilots take over for the autopilot. Outsourcing the pilots to a remote connection means that you’re outsourcing the backup, not the primary.

So you’re either swapping the autopilot to the role of backup (which is already a no-go in the current aircraft setup, so there’s no reason to assume they’d suddenly be okay with it) or you’re relying on the remote pilots to be as reliable as a pilot physically in the plane, which is foolish.

I can't imagine that people who actually work with software would trust these things. Without the ability to over-ride it, you'd never catch me in even an autonomous car even as a demonstration.

Everything is bug free and/or with sufficient redundancies until something no one expected to occur does and things go to hell.

Oh I’m assuming the remote pilots are the main source and the autopilot would be to keep the plane afloat until the pilots come back but not good enough to fully take over or anything

The pilots are the backup for the autopilot, not the other way around. If the autopilot were to be good enough to replace the pilots during the outage, there would be no need for pilots.

Basically, cars and trains have a simple autopilot rule: if things go south, brake, stop, wait for instructions.

Planes simply can’t be told to pull the handbrake and wait rescue. The airplane crew is a very well dressed rescue team.

(Drones don’t count as they won’t carry people, so you can apply the rule if things go south “soft crash in the place you took off from”, which is nice but it means strike a power cable on the way to the soft crash or land on a person head, and in fact, you’d hood let the drone take off place completely free for emergencies. Real life personal example: Dude sent his drone from a parking lot, and the drone came back for an emergency, I was parking in that spot, if I came a little earlier that drone would have landed on top of my car. Now imagine two airbus 380 emergency landing on the same runway at the same time. If you make it simple they gonna crash one in the other, if you make it more complex you increase the point of failure of the machine and autopilot… ultimately, the more you try to code different scenarios the more new scenarios you open in an infinite spiral. Then you are back to the old set brakes and wait, which a plane can’t do). Or you use a human pilot so multiple pilots on multiple planes can adapt and sort it out.