pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @0fje0 12 Jul 2024 \ parent \ on: Does SN support oauth2 authentication? meta
First: It's not @koob, but @k00b. Sorry, my bad. (I edited my comment to correct it.)
I suggest you just wait for @k00b to respond here?
Alternatively, search SN for "API access"...
#473244
More specifically: #473364
I haven't done this myself (and things may have changed since I read about it on SN), but as I recall, you can request API access to StackerNews from @k00b that should allow you to do that.
I'll try to find the post/comment I'm referring to, but @k00b may just respond here himself if the API is still a thing.
Nice post! I agree with the gist of it.
Now I'm going to butcher your butchered quote:
spend 100hrs knowing how money works
As bitcoiners, we tend to interpret the above as spending those 100hrs on learning how bitcoin works. It may be time to allocate more of those hours on learning how fiat money doesn't work?
I don't think you need oauth2 authentication to do that?
But I'm actually more curious to know if both @chovy and @profullstack want to automate posting links to ~news. Or are they the same stackers...?
So, when you see people at the top of hierarchies disconnected from reality, remember that the structure itself is a big part of the problem.
From the link:
Create an account to read the full story
What they actually mean:
Create a paid account to read the full story.
That link seems to have died.
I found this one still OK:
Predicted peak: The peak is predicted** for July 30, 2024, at 15:16 UTC. But this shower doesn’t have a noticeable peak. It rambles along steadily from late July through early August, joining forces with the August Perseids.
it is not known why
It's been brought up fairly often. At this point, I'm not sure if it serves any real purpose any more. Some have even argued that it never did to begin with.
I'm leaning towards it being more FOMO than anything else. I still try to keep mine, but I can't remember when last I took any notice of anybody else's hat.
They're also playing with Nostr
Have you tried that? I haven't yet, but I also thought that was a cool feature.
Never heard of Tidal
I chose this because they seem to have virtually everything Spotify has (my wife uses Spotify), but with better sound quality. More specifically, support for Dolby Atmos on many tracks. Plus other loss-less formats such as FLAC. All for the same price as Spotify.
And just a the other day I learned that Jack Dorsey is apparently involved in Tidal in some capacity. I just find that quite interesting.
Yes, it does affect me.
To illustrate: I wanted to zap your post, but got an error when I tried. Since I've never seen that error before, I thought I'd create a post for it in ~meta. Kinda like a bug report / support question.
That would have cost me 202 sats, which, ordinarily wouldn't put me off.
But instead I decided to add it here as a comment:
Saves me 201 sats.
All this to say, I don't pass on someone because they don't get bitcoin or even hate on it. It does inform me about them though.
Exactly. Well said.
If I remember correctly, it wasn't the topic of the rant. It just came up while lambasting something else in his typical style.
This guy sure knows how to rant. I've read most of his rants. Some are better than others, but there's almost always something to learn from it.
Except, of course, when he rants about bitcoin. /s
81 sats \ 5 replies \ @0fje0 3 Jul 2024 \ parent \ on: Why don't stackers donate to rewards anymore? meta
When the rewards went monthly I wandered away and I have no idea what is what.
Me too. I'm not convinced that experiment was a nett positive for SN.
Comments and suggestions...
Sharing zaps with the OP's may have been a nice gesture. Maybe consider that next time?
The truth here is : people value creators over content.
Isn't the algorithm re-enforcing that?
Like @ek wrote elsewhere:
Reputation increases the chance that someone will even read your content
This is the correct answer. And (thankfully?) no surprise that ~bitcoin is the most favourite territory. By a very large margin.