polarix

I don't think anyone sane would use that as a value store.

The blocks (the fundamental unit of verification) get harder or easier to complete based only on how quickly the last set completed: this is to maintain a constant speed of block mining.

The bitcoin payout (which goes to the miner of a block) gets predictably smaller over time.

So no, this affect does not increase expected transaction time.

What's truly fascinating is how much faith people are willing to put in such canaries, even given this obvious fact, that their hosts could simply be unreliable.

Goes to show how little faith we all have in our institutions of so-called justice.

Does anyone have a graph showing (per country labor share) * (per country real gdp) over time?

It would appear to me that if that quantity is actually increasing, then this is an interesting curiosity and alarming in that we don't understand it, but not actually an outright disaster, as the pie would still be growing fast enough to feed labor more in real terms.

The sample chapter really drives home what I dislike about Zen. It's taking this cute little ego thing and trying to lure it into a trap. Hah! That'll show it. Cut off its tail! Clever!

Rather, I prefer the more direct Advaita Vedanta approach: quickly smother it with napalm.

That there are copyright restrictions on this content.

Everything is copyrighted. Welcome to the blight.

Looking forward to the torrent. Tragic that this is what we are reduced to as a society.

That would be cheating, until the system has a sensory pathway to understanding the dictionary.

Then spend a lot of time together.

How about the animals and hand-soap aficionados? Perhaps they could hold off for a bit?

Consider that with bitcoin the "safest" asset is also the most liquid (easiest to exchange).

Here's a related question: is anything in our society currently autonomous?

Then I suppose we shouldn't call it a corporation. Does "Autonomous Economic Systems" sound better to you?

It's not clear that sexual or vulgar language (not sexist, generally, just sexual) is really the most important thing at stake for women in the profession. Probably they're more concerned with sub/unconscious bias, impostor syndrome, or, you know, actual outright abuse. Just a guess.

Oh, but the effects would be wide-ranging: if an idea has enough of a likelihood of angering people past some threshold (either lots of people, or a few rich ones), then it will only be reasonable to air that idea under strong pseudonymity.

Participating in this marketplace would be somewhat like voting, except it would have a tangible effect.

The point is deeper than this -- with such a system in place, one must never even attach their real name or address to controversial ideas.

This would allow thought to proceed on pure merit, rather than social proof.

That's a perfectly reasonable question, actually.

One possible answer is that communicating on the internet requires the use of a physical commons, which one could reasonably argue carries either innate restrictions or restrictions legitimately imposed by the owners of said infrastructure.

In some sense, though, most of these situations do see the founders learning management on someone else's dime.

It's just a segmented capital super-structure, rather than a traditional corporate system.

So, if the low-skill jobs stay around, but nobody wants to do them, their price increases, because nobody is forced to do them to stay alive.

Then we have a greater incentive to automate and deprecated the immorally unfulfilling jobs.

Seems like that'd solve the problem in this case better than having some nonsensical webpage pleading with customers to be inefficient.

Why is this not a desirable outcome for customers?

Copyright, the blight of thought.

Doesn't mention two-factor unlocking. Please let there be optional two-factor unlocking.

Stock market valuations take into account expectations, and this clearly met the market's expectations.

The syntax blocker is the biggest one for me. Are there books full of classic proofs and explanations of their syntax and shorthand? I'd be very interested.

People are not necessary, of course. People simply exist.

It is human physicality and desire that creates necessity. When humans are freed from servitude under other humans, their own passions are able to flourish.

Bolsa Familia is not a basic income. It fails to fix the fundamental problem with current welfare: that it is a disincentive to reemployment.

A proper basic income is fucking trivial to implement. Give every member of society X amount of money per T time period.

This has nothing to do with socialism. The means of production do NOT change ownership.

You want to be preventing PUSHES, not commits! Commits should be done early and often to prevent data loss. Edit the commits later.

Some people do know javascript. Implementations differ, but are getting more standardized as time goes on. Without the DOM and browser environment APIs, it gets a lot simpler. Do you think fewer people actually know javascript than actually know C++?