What does that mean?

concurrency

Some data structures and databases deal with concurrency.

Are you asking?

but calling it a "single data structure" is a bit reductive.

No it isn't. It's like a tiny database. Depending on how someone implements it, it could use arrays, hash maps and b-trees. There is no universe where this means a binary that does nothing should be 50 megabytes.

That's a single data structure. People say binaries start at 50 MB for a hello world program and 700 MB for the debug binaries.

https://old.reddit.com/r/bevy/comments/16wcixk/cant_figure_o...

https://flint.cs.yale.edu/feng/cos/resources/BIOS/procModes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode

Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects.

You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth is this isn't true at all, you just don't know that you're seeing digital effects and you think you're looking at photography or something practical.

The advertising tries to tell you "we did everything practical!", it's always a lie and you believe it.

It usually comes off as excessively childish for multiple reasons, including the fact that you can just not write filler words where not saying them can take practice.

I just explained history to you, you realize being patronizing and repeating yourself isn't evidence right?

From learning the basics of history? Before 1900-s famines were common, and most people were illiterate.

Do you think the printing press, the engine and large scale agriculture might have more to do with food and literacy than inflation?

All those problems were solved before the US went off the gold standard anyway.

In reality, the first inflation happened when the European civilization established contact with South America. It rapidly expanded the monetary base and provided an impetus to economic development.

You realize this doesn't make sense right? This idea that printing money somehow leads to all human advancement is bizarre, even for someone who is ignoring all the things I said before. If two cultures crossed oceans do you think the advancement might come from international trade or do you think some tribe in the jungle could make up a currency, start printing it off, then go straight on to skyscrapers and video games?

All this is just a gish gallop anyway, you never bothered to explain how not having inflation "causes hitler in 8 years" even though it's only been the last 50 years that we have been off of backed currency.

You also didn't confront the fact that anyone can put their money in stocks, bond or gold and essentially have a deflationary currency but they still spend money anyway.

Who told you that?

Households must be incentivized to spend

Says who? What about governments and companies? People are already incentivized to spend because they need things.

Buying stocks hoping that it would appreciate doesn’t work when there is no economic growth.

You're contradicting yourself and going around in circles. If there is "economic growth" according to you, then stocks will go up, which means they end up being a deflationary currency, which means people will put there money there and not spend it.

They already go up due to inflation, people do buy stocks and other liquid assets, people still spend money anyway.

Also, gold still exists. By your own logic, because anyone can still buy gold or gold futures they should park their money there and never spend it.

Currency losing almost all its value is by design.

It is by design by governments and for governments. No person wants an inflationary currency, governments want it because they can they can borrow and print money they don't have and hand it out to people who in turn help with political power.

People don't want their currency to inflate away unless they own a business that can raise prices while their employees make less nominally.

Says who?

people had barely enough money to buy necessities.

Where are you getting that? I think you're confusing and conflating all sorts of things like human advancements with inflationary money. I'm sure what you're saying makes sense if you think every invention, discovery and gain of knowledge was from people having their money inflated, but there isn't any evidence of this, it's just you restating it.

The economic growth exploded, surpassing _millenia_ of innovation within mere _decades_ once we got rid of the golden chains.

That really only happened in the 70s, it wasn't exactly the dark ages before that.

there’s no economic growth

Printing money doesn't create economic growth, it just inflates assets and depresses nominal wages.

money is worth more when you don’t spend them

People say this stuff like it's gospel, but if someone understands currency dynamics in the first place they would have their money in investments, which already should appreciate and act like a deflationary currency. People can already buy stocks and leave money there to get more valuable, so why does anyone spend money now?

You also have to figure out why it already worked for hundreds of years. People act like it would be an experiment. Floating currency is the experiment and it has lasted 50 years so far. Currency has lost almost all of it's value from before the 70s and minimum wage is a fraction of what it was nominally while asset prices are sky high, then people wonder why people can't afford a house or beef or gas or just to live alone.

There is already a quantifiable amount of money in existence, can we at least establish that?

I'm not sure what point you are making, it seems like you're just describing a gold backed currency and repeating the same things multiple times.

If you aren't using gold directly how would there ever be "not enough" unless a penny became worth too much? People did this for hundreds of years, this isn't some theory or experiment, it's basically how the world worked for most of human history.