0xFreebie

il on May 15, 2013

>As the anarchists and idealists on HN will soon learn, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin won't make a difference if anyone transmitting it is in violation of federal law.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5714963

Did he change his mind?

Naw I removed it. Just idle speculation. I'll put it in my about if you want to repost.

It absolutely still exists. Here is a chart that shows how regularly it happens.

https://www.statista.com/chart/5824/ios-iphone-compatibility...

Ah, Marvin the Paranoid Android, thank you.

Was Marvin named after Marvin Minsky?

Might their be some need to legislate chip allocation?

What would sink GDP more: one year of no new cars, or one year of no new phones? Which would have the greater domino effect on the economy?

Because auto manufacturers are such low margin, they can't buy chips reserved by monopoly businesses. But what happens when people can't afford a new phone because they can't get to work?

Long ago, the accuracy would decline as scar tissue formed around implanted electrodes. Not sure if that's changed in recent years as techniques improved.

A loose remaining proxy will be the ratio of like count to view count. Perhaps one of those will be axed next. I don't understand why complaining creators don't just turn off voting.

Because they are pivoting to being an ad company like Google.

Old people will show up and say: "Paid Firefox, I remember that when it failed as Netscape." Although technically that was Netscape Communicator? Maybe times have changed though.

Anyone have stats on how much it costs to run Wikipedia's collection of websites? Do they release itemized expenses (servers, programmers, lawyers, management, etc)?

There are also the reports about Wifi affecting plants.

https://www.eurekaselect.com/141391/article

But "Wifi allergies" seem like a myth.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.20536

It's strange that Apple requires a billing address to download free apps. That was unexpected given the marketing.

I can't decide if Facebook's usage of the word "safety" is more Kafkaesque or Orwellian. Where did this bizarre usage come from?

It sounds like the clearest example of a Ponzi scheme in my lifetime.

There's more about this amazing story at Paul's substack

https://zeroshillings.substack.com/p/it-was-never-supposed-t...

with the original blog post at

https://blog.deversifi.com/23-7-million-dollar-ethereum-tran...

Extensions are not allowed, because of course...

It also self updated, even if you have that turned off.

It's jarring because I've never seen advertising on any of the dozen substacks I've visited before. This one has so many ads.

You know, PvE is really underrated. I find playing against bots to be more fun, easier to gauge skill progress, and a better time with friends than playing against overmatched humans, whether cheating or not.

Losing 50% of your matches isn't fun. The alternative of losing 90% for months before winning 90% isn't inviting either.

I wish Ray Monk would write a biography of Alan Turing. He is an excellent biographer.

I've recently had the experience of getting a spam email that allowed the spammer to add an appointment to my Google Calendar without my permission - even though I never enabled such a feature, never communicated with the sender before, and didn't reply or star or have them in my contacts. Wtf.

Past time? She left in February.

Here is some context: https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/i8nuyb/firefox_de...

The way things are going, Firefox will have to drop their rendering engine for Webkit. What they're doing now is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, this is what actual Mozilla developers think about posts like this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200731211652/https://www.twitt...

It's sad.

Your right. This should be flagged.

The same reason Microsoft changed their business strategy in the late 1990s. If Apple keeps it up, they will be split up.

That's a good question. I know my comment sounds defeatist. Another commenter suggested requiring trades be announced in advance. Sometimes blind-trusts are used, but there's not much to show they make a difference. Opening up hearings and Congressional communications helps. Honestly it's a tough problem.

It's more complicated than that. If you prohibit stock ownership, they will cheat with every other asset class. (Real estate deals are easy too). If you prohibit all asset classes, it means only poor people can run for office - so they give inside tips instead to their brother, son, or campaign donors while maintaining a laughable illusion of poverty.

It's a tougher problem than it appears to be.

The world was better in 1999.