green1

> But your comment was way over from the beginning.

Honestly bemused by this. How is the following single sentence way over the line, other than the parts I quoted (which amount to about half of it)?

    So your personal experience does nothing less than illustrate Google's
    tracking to an "obvious" degree, but my personal experience is simply 
    "making a sweeping judgement" and "confusing this with knowledge for the
    sake of my own cognitive hygiene".

It's just a simple question asking why their personal experience shows something "obvious" (their word) about Google tracking, whereas mine doesn't.

Thanks for the links to the newcomments/noobcomments

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive

You think the post I replied to doesn't break (at the very least) that rule? Perhaps if you came down harder on the in-crowd high karma posters, other people wouldn't have to sarcastically thank them for their abuse.

> Your post was downvoted and flagged by legit users.

It was downvoted and flagged as soon as it was posted. So legit users with enough karma to downvote are sitting reloading page 2 threads for new posts half way down the page?

It's about fake views, not fake or copied news. The first site was copying articles (and banned by Google) but the Laredo one doesn't seem to be.

Maybe Google is different (and this is not about ads), but I don't believe for one second that I'm being tracked on Youtube by anything other than fingerprinting (or some other method unrelated to IP and cookies).

I don't even particularly care that much, but it's still creepy, and I'm genuinely surprised to see denials because I thought fingerprinting was pretty standard these days.

>> Aside from [...] libel

Aside from Holocaust denial, hate speech and libel how does the US differ from "Europe" in terms of free speech?

I'm surprised I had to scroll this far for this comment, which was exactly my thought after viewing the Github page.

From other comments here I assumed it did something sinister/sophisticated (matching photos, avatars or even text analysis) to try and tie a poster at one site to another site.

I'm just wondering if people who claimed to believe Bitcoin would end the banking system came up with that amongst themselves or were basing it on something "Satoshi" had said.

I had the impression Satoshi was relatively matter of fact about Bitcoin, but I haven't read much of his/her/their own words.

Did the creator himself seriously think Bitcoin would be the end of banks?

The point was about Churchill's popularity in Britain (real vs myth), not the British electoral system.

Yes, without winning the popular vote. From your link:

     Churchill: 13,717,851
        Attlee: 13,948,385

The British don't idealize Churchill, right-wing British and Americans do.

He was not even that popular in his finest hour, as head of a cross-party coalition wartime government, being kicked out of office by the British people before the war had even ended and never once won the popular vote in any general election.

Edit: Someone obviously doesn't like easily verifiable facts.

It's a fairly ridiculous scenario in any case.

1. Attacker needs a .gov from a swing state

2. No they don't, because nobody who'd fall for this would analyze the sender address/website URL, let alone for .gov instead of .org/.net/.com, and there's zero need to emulate a gov website anyway, when emulating a news site would be at least as effective

3. It relies on people reading an email on election day before voting and then not bothering to verify what it says anywhere, not having someone tell them it's fake and not hearing about the scam on the news they're watching for the bomb story

From that page:

> There is no KYC process.

How does an unbanked put their paper money into their cryptocurrency account without a KYC process? (Please don't say trust a random third party stranger in a pub offering cryptocurrency at an exorbitant markup.)

> There are no fees for opening or having an account

I've never paid a fee to open or have a bank account, but how does an unbanked put their paper money into their cryptocurrency account without paying a fee (or an exorbitant markup)?

> You don’t need to trust a third party with your money.

How does an unbanked get their paper money into their cryptocurrency account without trusting a third party?

> There’s no need to visit a financial institution. As long as you have internet access you always have access to your money and can make payments.

Online and phone banking existed decades before Bitcoin was created.

> Around 60% said they had too little money to use a bank account

Yet they'd somehow have enough to put into cryptocurrency account?

Ah thanks, I was totally confused by this discussion and curious what it was all about.

At first I thought rabidrat was just trolling/joking, but their other comments seemed legit, so wondered if they meant the site in the OP or they had a virus or his site had been hacked.

I even Googled the quoted text, but it just brings up the HN comment. Just didn't think of clicking the profile.

His about page doesn't 404. Nor does it contain the text you quoted in your previous reply and his main page does not link to /about.html.

In fact even if you deliberately add .html to the about page URL it just redirects to /about anyway, which makes your comments even more baffling.