1,478 karma · joined January 13, 2016
1. 10% of all BTC holders want to cash out. nobody lost their keys, so 2M BTC hit the “supply side” of the market.
2. 10% of all BTC holders want to cash out. half of them lost their keys, so only 1M BTC hit the supply side of the market.
this is the way it makes a difference. in the latter scenario, BTC spot price would likely reach a higher value.
a _lot_ of people complain about "anonymous Twitter users", and i want to understand what they mean by that. i think it's the sort of "[anonymous] asshole slides into my timeline and then leaves" behavior. and if so, i suspect it's not actually identity or its form but _reputation_ that matters in these interactions: "non-reputable asshole slides into my timeline" (and so considering reputation becomes important in your interactions). but they could equally mean "this person could have multiple identities on this site and that doesn't work for me" (e.g. some person could be playing both a left-leaning and a right-leaning account and using those multiple identities to drive a wedge into some community), so maybe they really do want to avoid interacting with people who don't have a verifiably singular identity (this isn't easy).
i should have distilled it to that point: when a person says they don't deal with anonymous users, do they actually care about identity, or are they using identity as a proxy for reputation -- and reputation is the more direct concern?
by “anonymous”, do most people mean pseudonymous users who haven’t established an identity (i.e. few to no posts, or no bio, or egg avatar)? or do most people mean to capture all pseudonymous users under that “anonymous” label? (in which case, how does one evaluate if the user is pseudonymous or using their legal name? even blue-checks can be pseudonymous).
what's wrong with the other 2 of the "original 3" gLTDs: .net and .org?
i spent an afternoon digging into the ownership of all of this stuff, and .org felt like the safest option. .com and .net are more directly owned/operated by a US for-profit company (Verisign) who has complied with US requests to seize .com domains in the past. .org at least still has structural ties to a non-profit with chapters across the globe, even if it's incorporated in the US.
you've got a lot of faith in "most world governments and taxing authorities". here in the US, i look at other countries who include in their tax statements a breakdown of where all your tax bill is going. that looks like a thing those other citizens benefit from, so please tell me: how can i vote this into effect here?
the author gives the oil analogy. the oil wells themselves have very similar economics to mining. it's the relationship between these similar operations and the investors which sets them apart more than the activity they're involved in.
hence my problem: i’ve got the Technics receiver + stereo speakers i inherited, but if you leave the receiver on for more than a couple days without explicitly venting it’ll cut out (even if it’s inactive: its idle power draw is incredible). that’s fine for me, but if i’m the only one who cares about audio, it’s a hassle for everyone else in the house to manually flip the rocker switch on as they use the tv and off when they’re done.
now i think about it, there’s probably some “smart outlet” i could get to make this transparent.
"We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it." (2020/07/25) -- topic being a coup in Bolivia for their lithium.
i have no background in this situation. personally, i think it's a little ridiculous to allude to this sort of thing and just expect that readers know wtf you're talking about.
a longer explanation would mention the different _software_ each instance might run. you might interact with very different front-ends (how they present UI themes, render threads, notifications, etc). and backends have different support too (emoji-based post reactions; quote-replies/boosts; chat features/integrations). although there's _some_ tendency for the backend features to converge, they often converge only to the level of compatibility (a :100: emoji reaction from one server will show up as a flair-less 'like' on an server that doesn't want the full feature) and sometimes one region of the space _really doesn't want a specific feature_ (Mastodon.social famously is dead-set against quote boosts). your preferences will directly shape which feature set you desire, and it'll tend to land you in an area of peers that share these preferences (shaping your local timeline and also drawing a circle around some peers where you can be reasonably confident that "this area of the fediverse will grow in a way that keeps our instances well-connected").
it's a really organic thing. your original question could just as well be framed "if the thing works regardless of provider, why isn't everyone just _their own_ provider" instead of "why doesn't everyone use _the same single_ provider". right now the forces oppose both ends, and you get a decentralized (not distributed) fediverse.
_if they're already bought into the docker ecosystem_, this is true. if not, then they first have to go read up on docker first: figure out how to install it (OS-specific), enable the docker system services (i think systemd more or less standardizes this step), configure a user that has permissions to manage docker deployments (also frequently OS-specific), etc.
not saying docker is or isn't a worthy tradeoff between balancing distribution work between the code authors and the OS packagers and the users. just don't blind yourself that it is another thing that users have to learn before they can use your stuff.
i'm not taking any stance on the risk v yield profile. i was just bothered by JumpCrisscross's mischaracterization of the earlier comment & wanted to correct that.
> This is probably the worst choice one can make. It's accepting a 0% nominal yield against an unregulated counterparty. A Bank of America savings account is literally a better choice.
you clipped out half the sentence:
> I would convert a some portion of my savings into stablecoins and spread them out into some interest accounts to try to minimize counterparty risk.
interest accounts. i.e. non-0% nominal yields.
as far as i can tell, most people say "yes". for me, when i imagine my dad's face, i get a brief flash of a grin, where the wrinkles are (but certainly not how many, or in any definition), and the rough cut of his hair. there's no eye color in the imagery, for example. stronger than any visual experience when i imagine his face is something of an emotional/empathetic experience -- what it feels like to be in his presence.
from what i gather, for people like me (and maybe you) who experience "some" visual imagery but not "lots", it's just a skill like any other and there are exercises you can do if you care enough about it to strengthen it.
a few people have told me "yes, i still feel something when i read that scene. it's more that i can't imagine any of the character's faces". i haven't met anyone who says they feel literally no emotions when reading any scene, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, nor does it mean the emotional response isn't attenuated.
to borrow cliched terms, big companies protect their position by either building a monopoly (Bell, your traditional telco) or building a moat (Apple). Netflix started with an effective monopoly on film distribution/streaming. at some point Disney & friends extended their moat vertically (Disney+), eating into the distribution layer that Netflix previously monopolized. perhaps leadership understood the monopoly would only ever be temporary and decided to build out their internal production house as such. whatever the case, Netflix still has the possibility of transforming this into a moat that stands alongside the other players in this space. maybe it can exist as this, but it will surely be less profitable than its monopoly days.
i’m not saying “let it collapse”: a government has a duty to protect its own citizens of course. but i do think the myopic view which subsidizes a system once it becomes too big to fail runs counter to long-term prosperity by making the local optima more trapping than they would otherwise be.
maybe, maybe not. Mastodon & the Fediverse has been around long enough to establish itself as a Twitter-like "alternative". it's crossed the scope at which it's hard to get concrete numbers about how many people actively use it, but lower bound's around 500k MAUs across 10k instances. we get waves of new users _every_ time something controversial happens around Twitter. the largest instance (which accounts for about 15% of all users) gained 12k new users in the past week [1], so figure 50-80k across the board; some of which leave after a week, some of which properly embed themselves.
no, these aren't big-tech-co numbers, but it's a large enough base to be accommodating to certain types of today's Twitter users. not _every_ Twitter user cares about having 300M peers v.s. 500k peers, and bridging between Twitter and ActivityPub works ok enough to ease that a bit, especially if you were primarily using Twitter as a glorified RSS feed.
this stuff is in easier reach than it's ever been. if you expect to consume the firehose and enjoy it, you're disillusioned: never has a single source appealed to every individual on the planet. you have to select your peers. curate your connections. if a friend repeatedly blasts you with bad political takes, cut or reduce the connection. the digital web isn't that different from the irl web in this aspect. it's your responsibility to craft connections that benefit your life. FB/Twitter/etc are tools to use in that (and far from the only ones), but you cannot abdicate your responsibility and expect good results.
as for litigation, i thought it was the individual member states that were suing Big Tech. i thought the only role the EU itself played here was that of explicitly stating the conditions under which members can do such things.
for example, state AGs band together in such a process pretty frequently.