pull down to refresh
@SimpleStacker
1,417,298 sats stacked
stacking since: #48657longest cowboy streak: 114 verified stacker.news contributor
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 27m \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
That's amazing. But I also imagine that high school was itself a much rarer thing back then as well, maybe more equivalent in prestige to colleges today?
whether texts or discord, don't you think they smell a bit fishy? like, does anyone write in such complete sentences with proper capitalization? Unless some of it has been "filled in" so that readers can understand it better.
it's for the sort by recent stuff. I feel a little more personal responsibility towards that since I worked on search so much in the past haha
i wanted to do the big mac thing but @pory_gone beat me to it, haha. To be honest, I think it would have taken me a much longer time, since I don't understand much about the caching stuff
I think as long as it is seen as a recreational thing, people will be less inclined to cheat with AI. Of course, there will always be cheaters, but if it's recreational then maybe the prevalence of cheaters won't be enough that it significantly degrades the popularity of the activity.
Chess is actually an example here, since it's very easy to cheat online playing chess, and yet online chess is still very popular.
That's a very fascinating question. I'm not 100% sure what lessons can be drawn from the chess example, but it's worth thinking about. (My hypothesis, though, is that the spike in popularity probably just coincided with the greater media coverage.)
I wonder if creative writing will see a spike in popularity. Now that computers can master the technical details of writing better than most people, I wonder if that will free people up to just be more creative in their writing, since technical perfection will no longer be seen as something worth pursuing.
"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." - Ecclesiastes 1:18
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight." - Proverbs 9:10
Ignorance is not something to be desired, but knowledge without hope also just leads to sorrow.
I use my calendar a lot. I also have a running to do list that I keep as a google doc so I can access it on the go from anywhere. Every morning I check that to do list and Monday morning of every week I plan through the week and decide what to put on that list and get a sense of when I'm going to do each task.
I find that by planning my responsibilities, I can more fully live in the present because I don't have to spend as much time worrying and keeping track of things in my head.
Curious how much of that is due to longer time spent in education, aging population, and growth in stay-at-home-dads.
What I'm saying is I want to understand what percent of them are either staying at home playing video games or leaching off disability
I think public interest in censorship resistance peaked during the Covid lockdowns.
Now that that's over, there seems to be little interest in it.
I'm not sure how it will play out, but there will probably be wrapper services you can still use without KYC
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4h \ parent \ on: ChatGPT may soon use KYC to detect user age AI
Why?
Hey, I'm only the second biggest statist on SN. The biggest is @Cje95... he literally works for the feds
Rothbard was mostly right when he said that the level of taxation matters more than the form of taxation.
Is this a Rothbard thing? I thought we all learn this in Econ 101
Not really. But even if they did, I don't know if it'd be too insightful... the optimal allocation to Bitcoin would probably just go down (if they were to address my specific critiques)
On a more serious note, here are their dismissal sentences:
Behind every fiat money used in exchange lies a unit of account defined by a monetary standard [which is] underwritten by credible claims to future surpluses monetized by the government and/or the commercial banking system. […] Claims of a ‘Bitcoin standard’ or anything like it are completely indefensible” (p. 28)
- The problem with this assertion is that it displays narrow present-bias, as well as loading a lot onto the word "credible". To what extent are future surpluses monetized by the government credible? In all parts of the world, at all times? Moreover, in what sense does Bitcoin not hold a credible claim to future surpluses? Just because it is not guaranteed by a government? Again, what is the guarantee of a government worth? Empirically, Bitcoin has been shown over a 15 year period to be a credible claim to future surpluses.
Rises in the bitcoin price do not prove the intrinsic value (or network value, or whatever) of Bitcoin any more than a lack of homes for sale in a neighborhood makes those homes infinitely valuable” (fn 48, p. 33)
- The problem with this assertion is reducto ad absurdum / straw man fallacy. No one said that homes in neighborhoods with limited supply are infinitely valuable, and no one said Bitcoin is infinitely valuable. However, we can reverse the argument against them: why do homes in neighborhood with limited supply grow in value? Because there is demand. Similarly with Bitcoin, the only reason it has any price point is because demand exists.