pull down to refresh
@SimpleStacker
1,007,128 sats stacked
stacking since: #48657longest cowboy streak: 114 verified stacker.news contributor
35 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 7h \ parent \ on: Bet Update: Us "No" Men Are So Fucked...? meta
Yeah unfortunately predyx isn't big enough yet that you can really take a position on something but I hope it gets there eventually
32 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8h \ parent \ on: Bet Update: Us "No" Men Are So Fucked...? meta
I feel like some kind of arbitrage opportunity was missed, seeing how the 1.4M odds dipped below the 1.5M odds for a second there, but I'm too lazy to figure out the proper betting strategy
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 15h \ parent \ on: Bet Update: Us "No" Men Are So Fucked...? meta
I only came across this term recently because I was using
pytesseract to do OCR on some PDF files, and I'd sometimes get warnings and even errors about decompression bombs. The only thing is, I didn't run into any actual bombs, some PDFs just had really huge images attached.Bitcoin maximalists seldom ask let alone answer such inconvenient questions.
Asked and answered.
Lastly, Section 5 throws some cold water on some of Bitcoiners' more optimistic predictions. In this section, the author evaluates the claim that Bitcoin can make it harder for the state to finance wars. He points out that, historically, being on a gold standard didn't prevent governments from finding creative ways to finance wars, and therefore he believes that governments will similarly find creative ways to finance wars even on a Bitcoin Standard.
I absolutely think that many agencies should be cut and/or be made more efficient.
I don't know if I want him to die on that hill and I just worry that going after the deep state too hard will just result in a failure of much more doable priorities, like rolling back DEI and getting immigration under control.
For example, look at what happened in Canada. I don't think that's a positive development and it clearly can be blamed on Trump pushing too hard on certain issues.
I only meant easy in the sense of politically easy, of making himself and the republican party more popular, with high approval ratings.
IMO if he limited himself to cracking down on wildly unpopular things, like DEI, transgender in sports, and deporting criminals, and left the government agencies and tariffs untouched, he'd probably have a much higher approval rating.
I don't know if there's a formal name for this fallacy, but it's basically how a partially true effect gets exaggerated to a totally (and exclusively) true effect.
An article like that doesn't sound like a side that's winning. It sounds like a side that's losing, looking for silver linings.
Speaking to Harvard, I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which its reputation has been damaged. I think if my children were to get into Harvard vs. a top tier state school like UCLA, I'd choose UCLA for them at this point.
Between the racial discrimination scandals and academic cheating scandals, and who they appointed as their last president, and even Harvard alums that I've met, I have very little respect for that institution remaining.
As to the two cities, I'm guessing New York and London?
These are the kinds of discussions I want to see more on stacker.news.
I sort of agree that Bitcoin has a branding problem. But the beauty of Bitcoin is that it isn't controlled... and thus no one controls the brand. Thus, the brand will evolve as it will, according to the decentralized forces that influence its image.
But ultimately, I do believe that truth has a way of surfacing, even if it takes a long time.
So despite the lack of branding control, Bitcoin's image will gradually become more aligned to its true properties, even if it takes many hype cycles to get there.
Lastly, I want to respond to this point from the author:
Why are so many of Bitcoin’s loudest supporters the people I least want to be aligned with? Trump. Bukele. Putin. Musk, Ken Sim.
I think these people are the "loudest" bitcoin supporters simply because they're just the loudest people overall. And again, because Bitcoin is decentralized... it doesn't have an acting head... the loudest overall people who support bitcoin will be seen as the loudest bitcoiners. And one should also take heart that a great number of bitcoiners don't even see Trump and Musk as bitcoiners, but shitcoiners.
Again, the beauty of Bitcoin is no one controls who is and isn't a bitcoiner, or who can and can't talk about bitcoin. If one believes in the virtues of decentralization, then this should be seen as a feature not a bug.
I'm also unconvinced, but I have to admit that I also was unconvinced and underwhelmed by the iPad, but OH how wrong I was about that...