pull down to refresh

This post is a daughter of yesterday's Podping update but the whole thing really stuck in my craw so much it needs its own post.

Why does this matter?

I really want to explain why this is important. This is not just two idiots being wrong on the Internet. This epic fail is the output of:
  • the editorial staff of the New York Times;
  • the writing staff of the New York Times;
  • the legal team of the New York Times;
  • and with the edition of one of the most highly revered, independent tech journalists, Casey Newton, who runs his own very successful Substack blog.
This matters because in this simple decision of naming a new podcast, and broadcasting their utterly made up, false and deceptive definition of a phrase in widespread use, the New York Times should be made to feel ashamed.

The erroneous definition of a "hard fork" by the New York Times

The New York Times top technology editors just named a podcast Hard Fork and then gave a COMPLETELY erroneous and made up definition of a Hard Fork: to justify the show's name. Which just shows how much they know at the Old Grey Lady.
A hard fork is a programming term for when you're building something that gets really screwed up. So you take the entire thing, break it and start over.
šŸ–• This is complete nonsense!

My comments on Podcasting 2.0 show

My comments on this made it into the latest episode of the Podcasting 2.0 Podcast where the New York Times tech journalists work gained the moniker epic fail.

When did the term "hard fork" start being used?

That is a search for the term "hard fork" from Google's index of books. We've had electronic computers since the 1960, the term "hard fork" didn't make it into a book until starting after early 2009. Hmmmm what happened in 2009? Here's a clue.

What does Google say about a "Hard Fork"

There is no mention of "a programming term for when you're building something that gets really screwed up".

Getting inside the minds of these Casey and Kevin

If I had to try and crawl into the brains of Kevin Roose and Casey Newton and try to understand how they came up with their own made up definition of "hard fork" I'd think like this:
  • neither of them have any background in programming or building a tech product;
  • looking at their LinkedIn profiles reveals writing jobs all the way down;
  • there's a button on GitHub called "fork";
  • programming is hard (because they don't know how to do it);
  • pressing the "fork" button on GitHub and changing a lot of stuff must be a "hard fork".

More on why this matters

Social media and the Internet are flooded with calls to stop disinformation and censor or shut down this point of view or those facts. Leading the charge, often, are these two writers and the wider milieu in which they swim. Their new Bible is the New York Times and its claim of being "all the news that's fit to print".
This is the same New York Times that covered up Stalin's crimes and genocide and for which their reporter, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize (which they were made to hand back eventually).
Whilst getting the definition of "hard fork" wrong is not in the same league as apologising for and hiding mass starvation in Ukraine, it does belittle and obfuscate the work of anyone using Blockchains for anything. That includes Bitcoiners and my particular interest, the hard forks of Hive which steadily improve our system.
These ongoing and regular, planned, hard forks are not evidence that Hive is broken, they are evidence that it is publicly improving. In a co-operative, non centrally controlled system, such as Hive built on a Blockchain, a hard fork is synonymous with a system upgrade where disparate individuals and teams, all have to agree and work in cooperation.

Once you know this, what you have to ask yourself is, what else is the New York Times wrong about and spreading misinformation and lies?


Full transcript:

Kevin Roose 0:00
I'm Kevin Roose, a tech columnist at the New York Times.
Casey Newton 0:02
And I'm Casey Newton from platformer.
Kevin Roose 0:05
Casey, we should probably explain why our podcast is called Hard fork.
Casey Newton 0:10
Oh, yeah. So a our other names didn't get approved by the New York Times lawyers
Kevin Roose 0:14
true.
Casey Newton 0:15
And B, it's actually a good name for what we're going to be talking about. A hard fork is a programming term for when you're building something that gets really screwed up. So you take the entire thing, break it and start over.
Kevin Roose 0:26
Right? And that's a little bit what it feels like right now in the tech industry, like these companies that you and I have been writing about for the past decade like Facebook and Google and Amazon. They're all kind of struggling to stay relevant.
Casey Newton 0:38
Yeah, I mean, we've noticed a lot of the energy and money in Silicon Valley is shifting to totally new ideas, crypto, the metaverse AI, it feels like a real turning point when the old things are going away. And interesting. New ones are coming in to replace them.
Kevin Roose 0:52 And all this is happening so fast. And some of it's so strange. Like, I just feel like I'm texting you constantly, like what is happening? What is this story? Explain this to me talk with me about this because I feel like I'm going insane.
Casey Newton 1:06 And so we're going to try to help each other feel a little bit less insane. We're going to talk about these stories. We're going to bring in other journalists, newsmakers, whoever else is involved in building this future to explain to us what's changing and why it all matters.
Kevin Roose 1:20 So listen to hardfork it comes out every Friday, starting October 7
Casey Newton 1:25
wherever you get your podcasts
Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Support Proposal 222 on PeakD Support Proposal 222 with Hivesigner Support Proposal 222 on Ecency

<div class="pull-right"> </div>
We need more thoroughly researched takedowns of journalists like this. Kudos!
reply
I doubt you'll get much tips for posting a Larimer derivative PoS chain on a Bitcoin news service. Especially considering that this one in particular has micropayments too.
reply
True, but worth a shot.
Appreciate the comment and the post.
reply
You're welcome to your micropayments. I generally earn a minimum of 250,000 sats per post on Hive and my dev work is paid 1.46m sats per day by the DAO so I only cross post here to remind myself this place still exists.
reply
All altcoins grow while they accumulate users, and then steadily decline in value as everyone realises the use case and value proposition don't exist. Out of 20,000 altcoins, there has been zero that have long term grown in Bitcoin echange value.
Meanwhile, my 100 sat tip today will be worth a dollar, with 100% certainty, in 4 years, I just have to wait.
The other tradeoff is you have to not offend the whales on Hive by questioning anything at all that promotes retail filling their bags. I was involved in the initial mother chain, Steem, before it had a hostile takeover and turned into JustinSunCoin along with his other scam Tron.
I've been involved in the building of 6 different altcoins in the last 7 years. Every single one was a scam, ponzi, and a cult. But you won't see it until the rug is pulled out from under you, and even then it could take years before you figure it out.
reply
I find value in censorship resistant text storage and I haven't seen anything better at that than Hive.
reply
It is frustrating that IPFS is not fulfilling this purpose. It is true that the posts on the chain are always available after some number of blocks.
I just can't stand the cult-ure of steem fork chains.
reply
I should just reinforce the point about micropayments. Lightning is the main protocol now that enables such small payments at an economic fee rate. And it does it in seconds, worst case.
The lack of need for immutability of this data because it is stored on chain, but without any identifying information is also pretty freakin amazing. Every payment you make on Hive is public. On Lightning, it's between you and who you pay, nobody else can find out, and once the HTLC expires it's gone. No need to store it.
I know what kind of resources are required to run a Hive node. It is prohibitively expensive. There is only about 100 copies, even though it is pretty much censorship resistant, that's not a lot of targets to shut down. And your access via the web is gone if every web app is taken down, you can keep a copy of it on your own, if you can afford the ever exploding amount of data on chain.
In that respect, you'd be better off using IPFS and pinata.
reply
Ipfs fails because it doesn't provide any way to incentivise pinning. We're working on that.
The storage size of Hive just dropped by half with better compression. It's currently smaller than Bitcoin.
A witness node runs fine on a $50 per month server and positions in the top 50 more than cover that cost.
Api servers which web front ends need are heavier but it's becoming easier to run modular parts of this infrastructure for specific apps.
I don't think Hive is the future for high frequency small payments as I'm doing on Lightning but it provides many things that lightning can't and shouldn't be trying.
reply
Considering that the main bloat of the chain is english language text it damn well better compress. And considering that it didn't start making a blog until, what was it, 2018? and a tiny userbase, it won't be as big as bitcoin.
Lightning isn't providing the forum, it's just payment rails. This application is just a lightning wallet with a forum attached.
Most importantly, there is no downvote, you tip, or not. No stealing from your brothers.
reply
I've gave up trying to explain to normies why mainstream outlets such as the NYT are absolute garbage when it comes to bitcoin. However, this is was also a redpill for me, as I wonder what else they are utter garbage about. I know there is even a name for this realization, but I can't remember it now.
reply
I know which one you mean, it was mentioned to me on here some time ago. I'll see if I find it.
reply
Funnily enough whilst writing this post I also knew there was a name for the phenomenon of realising that everything else a site writes might be garbage but I can't think of it either.
reply
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 15 Oct 2022
Not sure however if that is the exact name for the effect I was provided on here by another user. This effect does not seem to be very known. There isn't even a "proper" wikipedia entry for it. I only found this one in some hilarious dialect of German: https://pfl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesie_Effekt
reply
YES! This is it. Spent the last hour or so trying to remember. Thanks for finding it and soothing my mind on this.
reply
Great post. I learned a lot. What I didn't need to learn is how corrupt the New York Times is. That's been obvious for many years. I look forward to listening to your podcast on fountain.
reply
Yes, good post.
Good to see long form posts here - look forward to more @siggy47
reply