sodafountan

I'm not a psychologist, but I think narcissism and self-importance simply stem from a small world view.

If your main hobby/recreational activity in life is smoking weed (certainly not judging anyone) then you'll likely only associate with people who enjoy the same things, if anyone at all.

This leads to a very narrow world-view where you're the center of that world. Going out and meeting people, doing different activities, taking on new jobs and roles, going to school and getting an education all really help to humble people and make people realize that most of us are all very similar in our pursuit of happiness.

On the contrary, it could also be a universal human emotion in the same way that people are awe-struck when they visit the Grand Canyon or Redwood Forest.

It could end up being a very therapeutic endeavor for the average person if space-tourism becomes more accessible, putting people's problems in perspective.

I'm assuming the pilot could convince the union to fund the litigation if Delta tries to drag their feet, that's kind of what unions are for.

It's not odd, we're coming off of a global pandemic where people were commuting less, saving more (no daycare, not eating out), and collecting stimulus checks. Meanwhile, the businesses that should have failed because of the drop in consumer spending were kept alive with PPP loans.

At the same time, companies like Tesla and Micro-strategy are pouring billions into a new finite asset class.

There's simply more cash flowing into the system, it's just run of the mill inflation.

"Send to Bottom" of the help box is hilarious

The bigger and more concerning issue would be recipients complaining about the incoming email and marking it as spam, which could damage the reputation of HBO Max's domain and potentially send future legitimate messages to spam. (provided the integration tests don't use a non-primary domain for sending)

I learned this the hard way in my last role, I worked for a small company that wanted to do custom email marketing. I was pretty gung-ho about it, I thought I'd just set up a script to loop through contacts and use mailgun to send the email from a custom domain. As we used the tool we saw a steady drop-off in click-throughs to the site, the majority of our messages were getting caught up in spam filters.

Turns out there's a whole science to email marketing, how emails should be structured and formatted etc. A lot of times the criteria for spam is how often the domain was flagged for spam in the past, the length of the email, the contents etc.

Ended up relying on this tool quite a bit: https://www.mailgun.com/deliverability/email-spam-checker/

IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ Filecoin: https://filecoin.io/

blockchains are all about decentralization which will make more and more sense in the age of de-platforming (facebook, robinhood, twitter, AWS with Parler.. you name it), it makes sense why nobody would want to work on this technology for IBM, completely defeats the purpose.

There's so many other interesting applications for cryptocurrency too. In terms of gaming could you imagine in-game tokenized economies? What if Blizzard built a World of Warcraft token and had a real-time in game economy. What if Rockstar did it with Grand Theft Auto? All of a sudden these IP's have real world value tied to them in the form of a cryptocurrency - it really is interesting if you think it through.

I think we're actually on the cusp of some sort of hyperinflation/stagflation this decade, so BTC is a fantastic hedge against that.

You can't float the entire US economy along, shutter all of the businesses but keep people employed on government loans without ramifications. We should be in a terrible recession right now, but of course the government stepped in to prevent that from happening (mostly).

A functioning economy has a healthy level of financial inputs and outputs: you go to work, you spend X amount of your dollars on entertainment, food, home improvement etc. and you save Y amount.

The problem is when you shutter all of the businesses that just creates a massive surplus of money. That doesn't even get into things like stimulus checks, PPP loans, etc. People don't necessarily need more cash, people really need to produce more and start spending money again.

Too much economic input without enough output.

Needless to say the MicroStrategy investment was really smart and the author doesn't know what he's talking about. 51% attack? Really? So an individual actor is going to spin up computational power eclipsing the country of Switzerland just to take down bitcoin?

My girlfriend and I of 3 1/2 years broke up last month. I do partially blame the virus for showing us that maybe we weren't as compatible as I thought. I'm not great right now but I'm channeling my energy into self improvement, being active again, work, and being more social.

Yeah that's very "woke" of you for saying that but there's really no positive way to spin this. When a pilot, or flight attendant, or engineer has to retrain and possibly leave an industry they've worked in potentially their entire life that causes pain and suffering.

It doesn't surprise me that the HN crowd lacks the empathy to see the damage being done here, but say for instance someone told you couldn't code anymore, you lose your job, and you might have to pivot into another industry at a time when nobody's hiring and you don't even have the skills or training to get in the door. Then some pompous asshole online says "well ackchually this is good for the environment because computers consume energy and don't run off of the hot air I blow everytime I open my mouth"

Yeah that's not how it works, people losing their jobs and others being unable/unwilling to experience the world and travel is a very bad thing for the world.

I'd assume it's the speed advantage, but the only problem I can think of that would require that type of exponential speed is cracking hashing algorithms which just seems destructive and counterproductive, like building a digital nuclear bomb - and from my very limited understanding that's a long ways off from being achieved.

I assume there's probably many more complex computational problems outside of my domain that QC can help with. Does anybody know of any?

Strange, any insight on what the perception is of game programmers in Japan? I feel like a lot of the great Switch games are made by Nintendo, it would seem they'd be dying for good developers to continue developing first party titles.

I understand this isn't exactly what you're asking for as it seems like you burn out on the idea before you even get to the implementation but I've found that for coding projects, keeping my code clean really helps to motivate me to stick with the project.

If I'm building something and the code gets messy I increasingly feel frustrated while working with it which turns me off from working on it - somewhat of a negative feedback loop, so when I start to feel like the code is a hassle to work with, I switch gears from writing features to refactoring the existing code-base.

This gives me a nice change of pace, lets me think a little bit differently than simply "add features", and when the refactoring is done I have a much more thorough understanding of the code I've already written and what needs still needs to be done.

It seems like a pretty simple and obvious suggestion but I can't tell you the number of times I've let a personal project become unmanageable just because I've wanted to keep adding features which at least for me leads to burnout.

Uhm, what?

Or maybe they're just doing it out of convenience? Have you never payed a fee for convenience?

Have you tipped in a restaurant? Have you taken the highway instead of the back roads and payed a toll? Have you ever had food delivered to you?

Congrats you're doing the same thing people who pull money out of an ATM are doing you financially illiterate rube.

Well here's the thing about that, people were actively incentivized not to save cash with low interest rates and a booming stock market. I know for myself personally I'm heavily invested in the markets just because that's what worked best for almost a decade. Nobody saw this coming.

Now you have to debate selling your stock at such low prices and realizes huge loses or paying your bills - I think most people are going to try to hold out for unemployment/use credit before they do that.

I agree, as alarming as it sounds I think we'd need something much higher than a 2% fatality rate to justify completely giving up our civil liberties.

If anything it should be the elderly and vulnerable that are forced to isolate while the rest of society slows down for awhile, but even that I think is too egregious at this point.

I'm 26 and I can't for the life of me understand the appeal of tiktok, my girlfriend who's a few years younger than me likes it, we'll be sitting on the couch and she'll be watching videos and I just don't get it. On the flip side, she doesn't really like reddit which a site I use almost daily - to each their own I guess.

Tiktok is the first app or piece of technology or whatever you want to call it that made me feel "old", up until now I've been able to pick up on new trends and things that are popular with ease, I used Facebook early on, Instagram when it became popular and snapchat too but tiktok just didn't stick. I guess it's a small sign of things to come as I get older.

Hiring is much more nuanced than that. Putting people into categories like "Military Person" and "College Grad" is stupid.

I think we should all appreciate people's life choices, recognize people's hard work no matter how they went about doing that hard work (military, college, self-taught... who cares) and give people equal opportunities.

I've come to find that this is typically how life plays out anyway, most decent companies aren't particularly worried about the minutia of your background and are much more focused on what you know and what you can bring to the table now, and rightfully so.

I like meritocracies. The world should always operate as a meritocracy. It's 2020 for fucks sake lets end the gate-keeping.

That's a bold prediction,

I predict that gaming could see a huge uptick in crypto-currency usage. Could you imagine a game like Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft utilizing a crypto-currency rather than an in-game artificial currency? You could create entire in-game economies with real life value. People could actually make a living by playing games full time as scary as that sounds.

Could you imagine the moral implications of someone robbing you of crypto-currency in a game like GTA or some survival game?

I just think there's some very creative use-cases for crypto-currency that will pop up over the next decade.

IF is actually very binary, you just don't eat when you're fasting and eat whatever you want when you're not. (But try to keep it under 600 calories if you're a man, 500 if you're a women. And of course the healthier the food the better, think fish, greens, etc.) It's that simple.

I like OP's point, this diet works and it can't be sold to people en-mass which causes confusion when different retailers put their own little spin on things. Most fad diets are confusing, hard to follow, and sold to you. IF is none of those things.

Maybe just a typo? It's valued around $7,250 dollars currently

Oh god, I'm hardly describing all forms of currency, quite the opposite actually. All currency is fiat and artificially inflated which is actually the root of the problem entirely.

And yes by buying and hoarding bitcoin you can make yourself very rich - that's the point.

> So...like gold and silver?

Yes, except gold and silver don't scale. Bitcoin scales, it's almost infinitely divisible and can be traded without a third party on the internet. It's Gold 2.0.

> I'm trying to understand this. If everyone puts their money into Bitcoin, inflation won't eat the value of their money so they won't try to increase it by investing into dividend-producing businesses? Otherwise how is this "script" "flipped? I don't understand this line of reasoning.

No, but if bitcoin proves to be the better investment (which it has over the last decade of its existence) people will put their money where they can get the best return. Bitcoin is still largely unproven and considered risky but the more times it increases exponentially in value the more stable and secure it will seem.

To put it another way - If I had 1 million dollars ten years ago conventional wisdom would have said the absolute best place I could have put it was either the stock market or into real-estate. Looking back obviously there would have been no better place to put it than into bitcoin but nobody knew that back then.

The more people who move their investments away from "Conventional" investments like real-estate and into more inclusive assets like bitcoin the better it is for society as a whole. It's well documented that one of the big reasons silicon valley is so expensive to live in is because Chinese investors are moving in and purchasing real-estate just to sit on, good for them, bad for people in the area who get no piece of that economic action.

I could go on and on. I'm not going to pick apart every point you made but I certainly can, I think you'll see the light in a few years when bitcoin does what it does and skyrockets again.

Can I ask you this though: Do you think bitcoin will gain in value from this point on or do you think bitcoin will fizzle out, and why do you think that?

The world desperately needs bitcoin

You're always going to have people in life who have more than other people, life is inherently unfair, there's always going to be a 1%. You can put measures in place to ensure that the gap doesn't widen too greatly, but that's a different discussion.

It's true that bitcoin creates a disparity in ownership, but you can't actually realize any gain unless you sell what you have. If I'm accumulating and holding bitcoin, that's good for me and everyone else who's accumulating and holding bitcoin because it keeps the price up. If I sell bitcoin at a profit, that's good for me but bad for most other people, but I also lose my position and the price goes down to allow others to enter into the market.

There's no incentive to sell with dividend producing stocks and real-estate because they produce money, if you're strictly speaking about money begetting more money then that's the problem.

The middle class can gain a strong foothold in bitcoin in its nascencey, the elites aren't willing to give up their income producing assets but if bitcoin continues to multiply by 5-10X every four years like many expect it to then that gives the middle class incredible leverage to move up the economic hierarchy like we've never seen before.

I actually think this is how the next decade will play out, bitcoin will continue its historic rise and we'll see economic changes like we've never seen before. Bitcoin is going to restructure the way the economy works over the next decade or two.

Millennials will be able to pay off their loans, they'll be able to buy houses and many will become the new "Elite" until something else comes along.

Virtually every problem listed in this article is solved if bitcoin continues its historic rise - and yet you mention bitcoin on hacker news and you're down-voted to oblivion, it really is unbelievable.

The "Elites" are getting richer because capital is being used to accumulate more capital through dividends on stocks and revenue producing assets. The only reason money is being funneled into these assets is because they have the best return on investment, period. Money goes where it can get the best return.

The script gets flipped if that asset is a hard, un-inflatable asset like bitcoin with a built in scarcity mechanism.

Bitcoin doesn't have a dividend, if you're part of the 0.1 percent you can buy a ton of it, but in order to realize any gains you have to sell it and if you can't replenish it you'll have to go back to work to earn more. Of course all of that is in theory, a lot of the truly rich people in this world have income producing businesses and other assets aside from stocks but you could argue that that's a lot better than money simply producing more money.

The world desperately needs bitcoin to succeed.

Microsoft already announced they're working on xCloud: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-streaming/project-xclou...

Google is going to face the classic conundrum that anybody who's ever tried to enter the gaming industry has had to face, it doesn't matter how complex the technology is, every generation of gaming has some degree of complexity. Google will need a killer exclusive franchise.

When Microsoft entered the market with the original Xbox, it took Halo to make them competitive. When Nintendo did it in the 80's, it was Super Mario Bros. Sega did it with Sonic. Google needs a flagship IP or they'll fail.

Right, this is actually an example of capitalism working well. These women and everybody else who started pack and ship businesses were able to identity a need of the market and build businesses to meet that need and have become relatively wealthy from doing it (50 bucks an hour in rural Montana goes a long way).

Late stage capitalism is more massive corporations with unlimited dollars buying up real-estate, pumping millions of dollars into advertising, and paying their employees low wages (McDonald's, Walmart, etc.) to the point where individuals can't compete and quality suffers.

There are loans you can get without collateral, they're typically pretty small loans with higher interest and are only issued to people with good credit.

The problem with student loans is students typically don't have any credit, don't have any collateral and what they're seeking can't be repossessed if they default - banks know that issuing loans to these people without the backing of the government is financial suicide, in other words the free market says these loans shouldn't exist at all.

The student loan crisis was caused by government intervention, guaranteeing loans for people who otherwise wouldn't have even been eligible to receive that type of money allows institutions to jack the price of school up infinitely and banks to keep allowing it because neither can fail - in the long run it's only the student who has to bear the cost long term.

We need to allow institutions and banks to fail again, that's the only way you correct this problem. As soon as you stop guaranteeing loans banks stop issuing them and college's are forced to bring prices down. That would hurt some students in the short term who wouldn't be able to afford college but eventually the free market would do it's work and make college more reasonably priced again.