Stacker Saloon

saloon

Oh, thanks. Good to know. And you are what? 

Those were my first days on Stacker News, and I misunderstood that post—nothing more. But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re just an arrogant, worthless person who’s learned a few things about Bitcoin and then insults and criticizes everyone else… 

AskSN

What are you thankful for?

k00b

Oh, there are many things I'm thankful for. I will mention a few: 

Thankful for being alive, for having a functioning body, mental clarity, emotional resilience, feeling peace and joy in small moments...

Bro, I don’t understand why you try to respond to Darth. He doesn’t read what you write as it is; he reads it the way he *wants* to interpret it. He keeps trying to impose his thoughts and beliefs all the time, but without making any effort to listen to you or understand you. The most arrogant person I’ve ever seen here on Stacker News. There are others too, but he’s the most arrogant one.


Photography

![](https://m.stacker.news/119502)

This morning view beyond the window makes me somewhat nostalgic. I can’t quite say why. There’s something inherently beautiful in it, or perhaps the poignancy comes from the way it awakens within me the sensations of rain, the autumn forest, the edge of winters, departures, losses. Feelings that I have either lived myself, in real life, or that poetry, songs, paintings, and films have instilled in me.

A hint of nostalgia

ideasfromtheedge

I came across a quote recently that really made me think:

>People are less sincere in love, and more sincere in hate.

Do you think this is true — that people are less sincere when they love but more honest when they hate?


People are less sincere in love, and more sincere in hate

The University of Oxford is teaching its students how to use ChatGPT.
And this Oxford study says that 92% of people are using it incorrectly.
Most people ask GPT to do things for them:
     to write an essay or an email,
     to summarize an article,
     to explain something.

And that seems useful, doesn’t it?

But the more one asks Artificial Intelligence to do things for them, the less them engage ourselves. It’s like pretending to learn how to drive just by watching someone else drive. Or like having a personal trainer who runs laps for you on the track and expecting that you’ll lose weight.

Oxford says, therefore, we should do exactly the opposite.

Artificial Intelligence should ask you questions, test you, challenge whether you have really learned something.

For example, you could say:

Today I learned about the law of supply and demand in economics. Can you ask me 10 questions to see if I’ve grasped the concept?

And it might ask:

“What happens to the demand for a product when its price rises?”

You write your answer, and it evaluates how well you’ve understood.

So it’s like having a private tutor, but without the awkwardness of worrying that you might give the wrong answer.

The next step is to ask ChatGPT to create a real-life scenario and for you to step in and apply your knowledge. For example, ChatGPT might say:

Let’s suppose there are only two bottles of milk left on the market. You go to buy them for your children, but the seller tells you the milk is sold out. At that moment, you see the person in front of you in line, smiling as they pay 600 dollars and take the last two bottles of milk to give to their dog…

So, ChatGPT asks: Is the law of supply and demand just a trick to fool the poor?

And you can give your own answer. That’s how the dialogue continues.

What do you think about this way of using ChatGPT?

Could chatgpt be a great private tutor?

I was watching a documentary about animals on television and I don’t believe there is anyone who isn’t amazed by the way everything in their world has so much order.

You are amazed at how they preserve the balances that nature has set for them. There is no need there for laws, strategies, or conferences and summits. There everything exists simply by maintaining its delicate balance.

Animals live within this balance without planning, without philosophies, and yet every action of theirs contributes to the common harmony. Their instinct is simple, but wiser than any kind of knowledge we humans claim to have.

We humans, with all our achievements and our “brilliant” mind, have forgotten this simple wisdom. We build cities, create cutting-edge technology to control the world, but every step of ours often destroys that balance that existed without us. Forests are extinguished, rivers and the air are poisoned, and the creatures that lived in harmony with nature are disappearing under the weight of our “wisdom.”

It is tragic and ironic how man, the most intelligent being on the planet, has lost the most fundamental connection with the life that surrounds him. When we look at an animal that moves according to instinct, we understand a simple truth: wisdom does not come from words, diplomacy, or planning, but from harmony with the world that gave us birth.

God gave man dominion over the earth and everything in it, but we did not take care of it at all. I am certain that even for this we will be asked to give account for why we did not preserve this priceless gift of life.

Have we failed the gift God entrusted to us?

Philosophy is the inevitable future of humanity. The present is _ techne_, in other words the totality of activities through which man removes more and more pain and limitation. “Science” (which is the most powerful instrument that _techne_ possesses today) has achieved results because of the abandonment of the ancient category of _episteme_, in a word, the renunciation of the position of being absolute and irreversible truth. Today, “science” may have not only the aim of constructing—I emphasize, constructing—man, but it may also have the aim of removing from man any kind of limitation, and even of constructing God, which in other times was taken as something to be contemplated with worship.

But precisely because “science” has renounced being truth, any degree of perfection and happiness toward which it claims to lead man cannot be lived except as something unstable, which can be lost at any moment. The more desirable that life which _techne_ can build, the more unsatisfying is every logic, possessed by _techne_, that is put to work with the aim of achieving perfection or at least stability of what has been built. _Techne_ may remove from you any kind of limitation, but not that which consists in the doubt that everything you are or have can also be swallowed up by a nearby catastrophe. Only the logic of truth—I mean, only an absolute and irreversible answer—can remove the doubt. Precisely for this reason, philosophy is the future of man; who, when he arrives at the point of believing himself to be lord of being, will feel, through an impulse that has never before crossed him, the need to know the truth of this belief on his part, and consequently, what is most important, the need to know what truth is. 

Could Philosophy be the future of humanity?

Write a title for this : OpenAI just exposed thousands of private ChatGPT conversations to Google Search. And most users had no idea it was happening.

Your private chats were literally one toggle away from going public and showing up in Google results.

Here's what actually happened - and it's worse than you think.

OpenAI quietly introduced a "Make link discoverable" option within their new Shared Chats feature. Sounds innocent, right?

Wrong.

If you clicked that option, your chat became a public webpage that search engines could immediately index.￼

Google started crawling these conversations, and thousands of ChatGPT chats - many containing personal, professional, or sensitive content - began surfacing in Google Search results.

Why this was so dangerous:

- No clear warning: There was zero indication that enabling this option would make your content publicly searchable on Google.

- Basic web dev failure: OpenAI didn't add a "noindex" directive - web development 101 for keeping content off search engines.

- High-risk data exposed: The indexed chats included job applications, personal identifiers, business plans, technical code, and internal documents.

For a company pushing AI for enterprise use, this was a massive data governance failure.

Once this story started spreading, OpenAI pulled the plug within 24 hours.

They removed the "discoverable" option, started coordinating with Google to remove indexed links, and urged users to review their shared chats.

But the damage was already done. Cached versions of these conversations may still appear in search results.

Sam Altman previously warned about this - "There's no legal privacy shield around your AI chats yet - it's screwed up, and it needs fixing."

This wasn't some sophisticated hack. This was a feature working exactly as designed - with very poor execution lol.

Thousands of users accidentally made their private conversations public because of one unclear toggle.

And this won't be the last AI privacy incident. It's just the first one that got caught.

Thousands of ChatGPT Chats Accidentally Indexed by Google

Can you spin the threads?

Coinsreporter

BooksAndArticles

Diana was a very respected lady in the apartment building where I’ve lived for years. We had a family acquaintance and would often visit each other’s homes.

Diana left this life quite suddenly and at a very young age. She was only 57 years old. Three weeks ago, on a Sunday afternoon, she left her house to take a walk in one of the parks in our city, which lies around a lake. Poor Diana left on her own two feet and returned on the stretcher of an ambulance. 

While walking through the park, she suffered a sudden heart attack and died on one of the park’s pathways, near a plum tree.

I wasn’t in the city when it happened, so I couldn’t attend her funeral. Instead, I went to her house afterward. I found only her husband, Spiro. Their children, a son and a daughter, had already performed all the funeral rites and returned to their homes—her son in the Netherlands and her daughter in Canada.

As I was speaking with Spiro, the house cat, Pisua, came near and rubbed against my legs. “Poor cat,” said Spiro, “he’s sad. For the first three or four days, he hid in the wardrobe, among Diana’s clothes, and wouldn’t come out—not even to drink water or eat food.” Apparently, Spiro told me, the cat had seen the entire scene when they brought the lifeless body home in the ambulance, when they placed her in the coffin, and so on. It seemed as if the cat, too, was mourning the loss of the lady of the house.

In the days that followed, the image of the grieving cat stayed with me—the way he hid in the wardrobe, among Diana’s clothes.

But perhaps it wasn’t exactly grief, I thought to myself. The poor cat, frightened when he saw his owner lying in a coffin, must have felt uncertain and scared, and in search of safety, he chose a closed, enclosed space.

There is said that cats are deeply connected to their territory, often perceiving it as essential for their sense of safety and existence. Maybe Diana’s scent among the clothes, in one way or another, created in the cat’s brain the feeling that she hadn’t left, but was still present there, in the wardrobe.

But perhaps it goes deeper, I thought, and I recalled the belief that cats are among the animals that understand humans best—they feel the emotions and sentiments of those they are close to and with whom they have a special bond.

That last thought seemed a bit exaggerated to me, and I remembered Hachiko, the famous dog from the movie of the same name, who kept waiting for his owner even years after he had died. People say, not without reason, that the dog is the most loyal animal and the most inclined to serve humans. Still, I reasoned, Hachiko is a fictional character, even though at the beginning of the film it says it’s based on a true story. To make the film more compelling and emotional, it’s possible the creators exaggerated the dog’s loyalty after his master’s death.

But maybe the exaggeration isn’t that great, I reconsidered, as I recalled another dog—Argos, Odysseus’ dog—who is the only one to recognize his master when he returns after twenty years of war and wandering. Worn out from neglect, the dog died just moments after confirming that his master was alive and had come back.

Argos’s loyalty to his master contrasts sharply with the other characters, especially the many suitors who aimed to usurp the throne, steal Penelope, and kill his son, Telemachus. It’s no coincidence that scholars note the language used in the poem to describe Argos’s death resembles the language used for the death of noble warriors.

It’s hard to say whether animals, including Diana’s cat, actually mourn. Skeptics might be right in saying that such beliefs are rooted in humans’ anthropomorphic tendencies—in other words, the tendency to interpret every noble trait in animals as something borrowed from humans. But perhaps we can say with some certainty that some animals, even without knowing what mourning is, feel the absence of their four-legged companions—and even of their two-legged masters—with sadness.

Surely, they don’t know the word “mourning,” and they don’t understand human customs and conventions, but they seem to experience the void left by death. And if that’s true, then the phrase “In the beginning was the Word” should be replaced with “In the beginning was the feeling.”

In the beginning was the feeling...

I'm curious about what such an album would sound like for you. Would it be techno, metal, folk... 

Which music genre would best suit this album? What kind of titles, lyrics, and moods would capture the spirit of decentralization, cryptography, and financial revolution? 

I would like to see a **hip-hop** album inspired by Bitcoin because of its revolutionary, subversive tone. I mean a serious project.  

I'd love to hear your imaginative takes.

What would a music album entirely inspired by Bitcoin sound like?

econ

Would life have been better if we had stayed on a gold standard?

stack_harder

Maybe yes, in terms of inflation control and monetary discipline.

Probably not when it comes to economic flexibility, responding to crises, and promoting growth.

For me it would be empathy: **the ability to deeply understand and feel what others are experiencing**.

Empathy is not a cure-all—but as a universal baseline, it could move humanity closer to a more understanding, humane, and sustainable way of living. 

The key would be balancing empathy with wisdom and boundaries.

What would you choose?

If you could implant one value into humans being at birth, what would it be?

bitcoin

🚨 $330M in Bitcoin VANISHED — No Hack, Just a Mind Game! 🧠💥

One of the biggest crypto heists of 2025 just went down:

💸 3,520 BTC (~$330.7M) was stolen from a U.S.-based wallet.

But here’s the shocking part:
🔓 No smart contract flaws
🛡️ No blockchain bugs
❌ No tech failure at all… just human trust exploited.

---
🕵️ What Actually Happened?
This wasn’t a hack.

It was a social engineering trap — a psychological hustle, not a technical one. 🎭
Scammers acted like trusted providers, slowly earning trust over WEEKS.
Then — boom — they got access to sensitive wallet info.
🔥 Within hours, the BTC was gone…
🧱 Laundered through 50+ wallets & 20+ exchanges.
Untraceable. Untouchable.

---
👀 Social Engineering in Crypto?

It’s not your blockchain that’s vulnerable…
It’s YOU — your habits, your emotions, your attention. 💡

🎣 Scammer Playbook: • Fake tech support “helpers”. 
• Phishing emails/websites 🎯
• Impersonating devs, friends, even exchange staff 😨

---
⚠️ Why This Should Scare You
This BTC wasn’t sitting hot on an exchange...
It was in cold storage. ❄️🔐
The wallet was secure — the judgment wasn’t. 🧠💔

---
🛡️ How to Stay Safe in 2025 (and beyond):
✅ Never share your seed phrase — EVER.
✅ Use multi-sig wallets for large bags 🏦
✅ Triple-check links, emails, and identities 🔍
🚩 If it feels urgent, emotional, or pressure-filled —
💣 It’s probably a SCAM.

---
📢 Final Reminder:

Blockchain is safe.
💬 People are the backdoor.
Don’t get socially hacked.
🧠 Think.
🖱️ Click smart.
💬 Trust slow.


$330M in Bitcoin VANISHED — No Hack, Just a Mind Game!

As you read Emil Cioran's essays and aphorisms, you're not just “reading” to find answers. Instead, you're entering into a dialogue with a brilliant madman who seems to understand the deep-seated unease we sometimes feel about life's inherent contradictions.

There’s no fluff in his writings, no appeasement, no desire to reinforce the illusions we’ve all grown accustomed to. But, he also understood that many of us “last only as long as our fictions.”

Cioran's words resonate with the dark side of who we are—the part that sometimes wonders if it's all worth it—the daily grind, the pursuit of meaning, the endless striving. He’s not for the faint of heart, but his bleak insight is laced with a strange beauty.

[Read more](https://poeticoutlaws.substack.com/p/emil-cioran-the-tired-intellectual?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true)

Emil Cioran: The Tired Intellectual

movies

Is America the greatest country on world?

B_for_Bitcoin

America is so in love with itself that it is too blind to see, that it's not everybody's darling. There are other nations, other cultures, other volks out there with their own greatness.

Socrates: “Every wrongful act stems from ignorance, and the mind does not commit errors.”

Ignorance isn’t the only reason men do wrong. Some know better and still take the bad road because it’s easy, because it pays, because they want to. The mind isn’t perfect. It fools itself. It justifies what it shouldn’t. A man can stare truth in the face and still turn away.

Aristotle: “Most human actions arise from the non-rational parts of the soul.”

Men don’t live by reason alone. They act from hunger, from fear, from things buried deep. They tell themselves they have reasons, but often, it’s just the body talking. It’s the old instincts, the old habits, the pull of comfort. A man fights this or he doesn’t.

Spinoza: “Desires are the source of actions, and the mind succumbs to the power of desire.”

Desire is a hard thing. It moves men. It makes them weak, makes them strong, makes them fools. But the mind isn’t helpless. A man can turn his back on desire. He can hold the line. He can train himself to want better things. But it takes work. It takes knowing himself.

Schopenhauer: “Human actions cannot be predicted, for they stem from a blind, purposeless will.”

Men aren’t leaves in the wind. They have patterns. They have ways. If you watch them long enough, you see it. They think they act on a whim, but their past, their nature, their choices—these things steer them. The world is not blind. It just doesn’t care.

Freud: “The mind manifests as an influential actor when satisfying instincts; all human actions have instinctual roots.”

Instinct runs deep, but a man is more than hunger and lust. He can choose. He can suffer for something bigger. He can walk away from what his body screams for. Some men do. Some men don’t. That’s what makes the difference.

Dostoevsky: “Man does not act out of knowledge as much as he does out of habit.”

A man is his habits more than his thoughts. He may know better, but he will still wake, eat, drink, and sin as he always has. Change is slow. Hard. Some never do it. They live the same day over and over until they die.

Nietzsche: “The mind that does not destroy the old world—the world entrenched in the depths of the universal mind—is slavery. The mind tethered to a stake…”

If a man never breaks the chains of old ideas, he stays a slave. The world is built on the past, but a man must tear it down if it holds him back. He must burn the old gods, the old rules, and make his own way. Otherwise, he is not free.

Slaves to the past or masters of ourselves?

Your life is like a coin.
You can spend it however you want.
But only once…