pull down to refresh
@adlai
stacking since: #1195179longest cowboy streak: 4
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 18h \ parent \ on: @Solomonsatoshi's bio
You're guessing my interpretations of human morality and evolution from, what, fifty kilobytes of text rambled out in the weird hours of a life you probably don't know much about?
That one line of yours has won you my personal derision, and I should probably save up the efforts to have respectful dialogue with people who don't think their telepathy works as well as yours apparently tells you.
please consider paying separate fees per question; if you're worried about the exponential blowup, save the drafted questions in some file on your computer, preferably on the desktop where you'll remember what drafts you didn't post yesterday next time you boot up.
Thank you for sharing this.
I think lots of people don't realise all the additional benefits of worrying about accessibility; they might think it requires extra costs because they only think about their own time spent learning, and completely miss considerations like the ludicrously high power requirements of the modern media fashions.
Reducing the power requirements of your communications benefits everyone, regardless of whether they suffer from any recognized disabilities...
In this case, I'd probably name the SN post something different than the article, especially considering that the entire original title fits within the link and would thus still be visible in the resulting page.
whether the moneyness of the zaps really matters. That is, does it matter that zaps are real money? Or would users be responsive to these micro-incentives even if they were just points on a scoreboard? (i.e. Reddit reputation, etc.) It's plausible that they moneyness doesn't matter, and that people treat SN as a game to earn points. But it's also plausible (and more likely) that the moneyness does matter. This may be hard to test
is any of the data about CCs vs Sats publicly readable?
Governments are the primary drivers of the wealth of nations.
Setting aside the quoted hilarious tautology; most of what you wrote is an overgeneralisation. Modern "government" lumps together lots of different organizations, and part of the neverending effort of participating in politics as a libertarian, rather than just darthing out into the wilderness, is to privatise or "factor apart" the monolithic structures into ones that are both less mutually dependent and easier for individuals to navigate.
In many cases, corruption is synonymous with lack of transparency.
Let's take the document renewal example; if that excuse were true, and someone showed up with money [or even the raw materials], and were given priority in the line, would people still scream corruption? They definitely would, if there was no explanation given of why someone suddenly got serviced out of turn.
In your specific case, the increased transparency [given by your explanation] shows that "corruption" is too general a term, and the specific social force at play here was nepotism. While nepotism definitely doesn't explain away all instances of corruption, it is a much older and more fundamental social force than financial bribery, and might help show that the various forms of corruption are probably older than history and maybe also older than money.
how about avoiding the word "fake"?
outside of forensic study of artefacts and blatantly false news stories, it is often an oversimplification; e.g., in this case, the "sane take" is that the concern is disproportionate, which is completely different from what simpleminded folks might interpret from the clickbait headline.
Interesting.
Three additional sources that seem notably absent from your list are the Bitcoin Wiki, the old forums (bitcointalk), and IRC logs. It's beyond trivial to log IRC channels1, and many channels populated by strong personalities end up having official logs to help arguments converge rapidly.
Footnotes
-
some clients do this by default and it actually needs to be disabled, otherwise you're technically violating the social contract of some communities, although it is impossible to enforce ↩
I'm not offended by that word, although I think it's actually less useful than "stupid", because "dumb" leaves some arguable ambiguity about whether you meant "unintelligent" or "incapable of producing speech", whereas stupid removes all doubt.
Conversations should definitely be encouraged equally even if they're not "hot" and seeing new posts at an hourly frequency. Some people have high signal precisely because they're doing things other than authoring high-quality prose for a bulletin board, and if their participation is only incentivised when they spend hours catering to artificial engagement metrics, then they might avoid the place entirely and stick to doing their thing and posting about it through services that deliver content sequentiallly rather than algorithmically.
Really it should be ranges of hours; and some people wear socks without shoes on while indoors, and feet sweat less when they can "breathe" ...
Both of my most recent awakenings were noteworthy enough that I'll describe them, briefly; thanks to @plebpoet for the encouragement...
- earlier today, my awakening was after a long sequence where I was leading a mountaineering expedition. I don't remember any obvious identifications of my followers, although it was a small group. For some unknown reason, the expedition had not been prepared for actual climbing, and I soon found myself scaling a strange formation that lacked exposed rock. I wanted to explain that this wasn't natural, and also not a safe route for anyone to cross without special equipment, however, dry windy weather conditions prevented me from communicating anymore with my troupe. Earlier, I recognized a strange building several times, while the trail had still been walkable; it was designed to evoke medieval crenellations, although the arches covered opaque windows of the top floor. The building seemed to observe the trail. After several attempts to make headway in the dangerous part, I returned to the walkable portion of the trail, and someone took my place at the lead; he climbed directly upwards, rather than scaling around the outcropping that prevented walking further, and I awoke before I could follow.
- before awakening yesterday, I was in the wings of some auditorium where lots of military officers were gathered for some speech. my role there wasn't clear; probably something logistical related to the venue. I was trying to give some advice to one of the people preparing to address the audience, although nobody was heeding anything I said. the speaker walked onstage and I awoke before the speech began.
These are both notable in being related to America; yesterday's was visually reminiscent of the "all hands" speech by Trump and Hegseth, and today's was accompanied by the "fact" of the trail being located in a part of America where I spent some significant time of my youth, although I didn't actually recognize any of the scenery. It's a little weird because I've not been to America in years, and my only news from it arrives by smartphone.
why the long ramble? several of your points could lead to interesting discussion, although almost nobody will see the comment, because nobody zapped something that rambles so far off-topic...
I often think about driving cars and how in many places around the world, humans managed to figure out how to use motor vehicles.
You realise some people think motor vehicles should only be driven by select professionals?
It's a subtle opinion, and too easily confused with the self-driving hype.
Some smart people prefer trusting chosen authority; for example, family units might delegate all the financial complications to one of the parents, and if an entire tribe operates this way, then any individual child doesn't face risk of getting disenfranchised, as long as the treasurers have standardised recovery infrastructure for preserving inheritances.
people are still too dumb for bitcoin
may I encourage you today to consider a word other than "dumb" ?
please remember, my goal is aligned with yours; I want to help you reach a larger audience, and more effectively preach to the audience you already have.
I think lots of folks1 are ideologically receptive to regular good old Bitcoin Maximalism, however they might have various qualms about learning more; one of these is the embarassment of having been aware of Bitcoin for a long time, but first encountered it in scam warnings, and thus written it off.... then today, they feel like they've "missed the boat", and might even privately think of themselves as stupid. There's a huge and important difference between privately thinking of yourself as having been stupid in the past, and getting called stupid by someone else in the present.
I honestly think the problem for most people is similar to whether they're "too dumb for calculus". They could probably figure it out, with the right combination of time, motivation, and resources; mentorship helps, although I doubt all four are equally necessary.
Footnotes
-
most of whom aren't on this site yet, although they might someday read screenshots, or even visit after someone shares a link... ↩
I think the bar for "actually using bitcoin" is higher than only holding your own keys; at minimum, you must have supervision, or even exclusive control, of some parts of verification.... otherwise, you might hold keys generated privately from your offline wxBitcoin and share the address publicly, only for your grandchildren to discover that your idiot friend sent bcash to the address that was valid on both chains.
I have relatively strong opinions about whether certain dubious practices1 fall within the range of mature and respectable "use of bitcoin", however I realise that there are so many quirks and features accumulated in the decade-plus that the system has been suffering through its very own tragedy of the commons, that I consider some of them open to debate.
Footnotes
-
the champion is giving away private keys, rather than bothering to run signing infrastructure... "you want the treasure? knock yourself out" ↩
Let's stick to the physical analogy evoked by "keys", rather than get all tangled up in the noise that results from worrying about online communications...
Nomadic1 people can pay the postal service for a mailbox, and keep their own keys; while one of the most frequent complaints of lawn-owners is that some drunk [or vindictive] driver has knocked down their mailbox.
Footnotes
-
edited to replace "homeless" with "nomadic", and deliberately highlighting this in the footnote; I realise there's a complete venn diagram, and a third circle could be added by asking whether people lived this way by choice... still, the neutral adjective "nomadic" is probably more appropriate for this discussion, than the pejorative "homeless". ↩