If it were some random startup that was going to be gone in 2 years anyways I wouldn't have to worry about being opted-in without my knowledge.
It does matter more because it's Microsoft doing it.
1,802 karma · joined July 14, 2016
It does matter more because it's Microsoft doing it.
TCP is fine. HTTP is fine. We need to stop pretending HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 are "upgrades" and just call it a separate protocol. Maybe someday chrome will be able to load from QUIC://news.ycombinator.com
They would if their woodworking projects spanned decades and involved thousands of other woodworkers.
A quick internet search suggest that a regular 12" record should have a capacity of around ~10-20MB. That is just enough to store one regular JPG photo.
There seem to be print shops that will press records for you at the cost of around ~$100/copy (minimum run 100 copies).
So to back up my ~1,000-ish photos per year I just need a climate controlled warehouse and 99 friend-with-warehouses to distribute backups too!
A better response would have been "Sorry but your mother does not actually have the authority to declare federal disasters"
It's nice to see some appreciation for HTML. And it's especially nice that the front page of the htmx website actually tells you what it is rather than try to convince you how much VC clout it has.
I would add to this with the observation that the existence of "power users" is very likely a sign that the system is poorly designed.
Obviously some things are just really complex and there is no way around that. But most things are not. A good system will easily and intuitively solve the user's problems without them needing a degree from NASA to understand how to use it.
> I can't realistically use credit cards. I can't walk in a store and pay using my credit card
That was true at some point and I would agree that as long as it remained true "Why should I carry a credit card that I can't use anywhere?" would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
> And if I want to send some money to my friend, I have to walk them through of opening a bank account which they won't do because it's pointless anyway and I can just hand them the $50 dollar bill"
This is completely disconnected from reality. People very commonly use bank accounts and checks. I know they must exist but I cant think of a single person in my life who would need my help dealing with a check.
> It is a real currency, it's used every day for transactions. Just because you don't find use for it in your life does not disqualify it.
You could say the same thing about V Bucks but that doesn't make it a real currency.
Half the point of a digital cash is that you never need a wire transfer because you can just exchange the digital cash directly. Effectively the same as handing someone an envelope full of physical cash.
The currency exchange step needed to convert that BTC back into real money is probably more annoying than just dealing with a wire transfer. And that is essentially my point. If you send someone USD, they can use that directly to pay for expenses like food or rent. If you send someone BTC, they need to first convert that into a real currency before they can use it. That is what I am referencing when I say "The 'Killer App' for a cryptocurrency would be the ability to use it as a currency".
I'm a little confused by this and want to better understand what point you intend to make.
What do you mean by "a little girl from harlem" and "a medieval european monarch"?
It's evident in literally the first line of the bitcoin whitepaper:
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"
If paying a random person online was as easy as dropping a quarter in a cup the internet could be a very different place.
It has the exact same practical problems every other distributed cryptocurrency has preventing it from being useful as an actual currency. If Monero ever started seeing adoption as an actual currency it would fall apart just like Bitcoin.
I guess it helps that its value is relatively stable.
But I still can't realistically use it. I can't walk in a store, buy something, then pay with Monero which is obviously disqualifying on it's own. But in addition to that, if I want to give a friend some Monero I would have to walk them through making a new account with some new app which they won't do because it's pointless anyways.
The initial comment was this: > The place we spent the most time in the 21st century, Afghanistan, somehow went from an objective of destroying Al Qaeda to ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights.
Which implies that the commenter does not understand how decreasing gender inequality would help "destroy Al Qaeda" in Afghanistan.
The next commenter then very clearly points out the missing information stating:
> I think in Afghanistan's case, the goal was clear but it was not achievable. A bombing campaign, some boots on the ground, and killing some leaders could not actually achieve the "objective of destroying Al Qaeda," because it would just re-form afterwards. You'd have to change the society so it wouldn't reform, hence "ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights."
You then re-assert the initial flawed reasoning by stating > How exactly does providing the latter do anything but piss off surviving conservatives and hardliners and reactionaries even more?
To rephrase my previous answer with a quote you won't bother to look up: "Women's full participation in politics and the economy makes a society more likely to succeed"
And you want to splinter the discussion further into the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Look into it yourself if you care so much. I don't care to get so far off topic.
> [1] The country reverted back to its previous state before the occupation even ended.
Ok, so, you would agree then that ensuring that girls got a good education and had equal rights is an important part of the plan when the objective is to destroy Al Qaeda?
Yes
> It's one thing to slowly shift the goal posts in a civil society over decades through these kinds of soft changes...
Are we talking about the same thing? "Shifting goal posts" usually means confusing positions in an argument by changing the point of the discussion. I'm not sure what relevance that has here.
Also, the US occupation of Afghanistan did last for decades so, again, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
It is fairly well understood that decreasing gender inequality by empowering women is one of the most effective ways to reduce instability in struggling societies.
Is very clearly not saying "the victim deserved it".
It is saying "the 'victim' was looking for an excuse".
Either way, both statements are harmfully reductive.
You (the franchisee) must use this specific machine that breaks all the time and for repairs to that machine you must use this specific vendor with whom we (the franchisor) have a "special" deal.