nybble41

5 ms·

1.
by nybble41 3y ago
Or to put it another way, the "intellectual capital" argument presupposes that you aspire to become a bully yourself, and live among a society of similar bullies. There is no incentivising effect on someone who wishes to innovate
2.
by nybble41 4y ago
To follow up on this, since we may still be talking past one another, I do not believe that the software design is deficient or that the disconnect between the implementation and actual use is nearly so large as the article makes it out to
3.
by nybble41 4y ago
There are two concepts being confused here: Git branches and what I'll call "logical" branches. The mutable object in the Git data model known as a "branch" is really just a ref and nothing more. Traditionally it po
4.
by nybble41 4y ago
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#... The current holder of the domains and trademarks was elected as the custodian for a limited time (through the end of 2022). The terms of th
5.
by nybble41 4y ago
> What you are describing is a full-reserve bank. Yeah, like I said: an honest bank. It's an open secret that money "in your bank account" isn't actually in your account waiting to be withdrawn—the banks will openly
6.
by nybble41 4y ago
Users include both buyers and sellers. Slow settlement and reversible transactions are a boon for buyers (and for fraudsters abusing chargebacks to get free stuff). For sellers they're a bit of a nightmare since you never know when m
7.
by nybble41 4y ago
> Now, an L2 service could go lower but then they're taking on more risk which they'll want to be paid for and it's basically reinventing Venmo or Square Cash. It feels like there is a subtle misunderstanding here: Credit
8.
by nybble41 4y ago
You do fractional reserve banking with BTC the same way you do it with any other currency: You only keep enough BTC on hand to cover the projected worst-case withdrawals, and take the risk of needing to shut down or possibly declare bankrup
9.
by nybble41 4y ago
> due to leaked credentials (in this case the card number + CVV + exp date) That information is practically public already, since you have to provide it to everyone you purchase from online with your card. If you regularly buy things onl
10.
by nybble41 4y ago
> you have no explicit right to privacy in the US According to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the People have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seiz
11.
by nybble41 4y ago
> My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked. Wouldn't that unduly bias the jury selection? In effect the employer is being allowed to buy extra representation.
12.
by nybble41 4y ago
> If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? Flagged for what, exactly? The perceptual hash would show that all three of you uploaded the same video, but not that
13.
by nybble41 4y ago
> if you have 51% of the bill or such you can get it replaced What if it's the middle third of the bill that's missing? Does the 51% need to be contiguous? The links suggest that you only need 51% in total, even if the bill was
14.
by nybble41 4y ago
Mostly people are living longer. When SS first started only 55% of males and 60% of females who made it to age 21 would have survived their working-age years to retire at age 65 in 1940. By 1990 that figure had risen to 72% and 83%, respect
15.
by nybble41 4y ago
If you have no flexibility as to location then you have no bargaining power; of course the prices will be sky-high. So you plan multiple potential routes (the road or rail doesn't need to go in a perfectly straight line) and make the p
16.
by nybble41 4y ago
Hey, my answer is actually to eliminate the position and put no one in power. I don't trust all idealists myself, though I'm not convinced corruption is better. But the OP was pinning for the rose-tinted days of yore when great
17.
by nybble41 4y ago
In 1945 there were 42 workers paying SS taxes for every retiree collecting benefits. For equal pay / retirement income after SS taxes, each worker only needs to provide 2.3%. Today (actually since 2009) that ratio is three workers per
18.
by nybble41 4y ago
I didn't mean to imply there was anything like voluntary consent involved. I'm on your side here. But there is popular support for this program which wouldn't exist if it were presented purely as a wealth transfer with no ups
19.
by nybble41 4y ago
No one with a profit motive would be interested, which is the whole idea. You'd get idealists and people seeking to make a name for themselves instead. (I'm not saying this is a perfect system BTW. I even called it a "crazy
20.
by nybble41 4y ago
You are correct. Nonetheless, those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan under the assumption that they would one day be able to take their place as beneficiaries. They gave up significant amounts of money which could have b
21.
by nybble41 4y ago
> Now, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction -- no project can be built because no one is willing to step on anyone's toes. I don't see this as a bad thing at all. We could do with fewer "megaprojects" unap
22.
by nybble41 4y ago
Crazy suggestion: Bar politicians from owning property or having any income (including gifts of goods or services) apart from the stipend for their appointed position. For life. Everything owned beforehand has to be given away as a conditio
23.
by nybble41 4y ago
That's easily solved: Just don't announce who was selected until after the vote.
24.
by nybble41 4y ago
> You cannot go on someone else's property and start yelling because they have the right to kick you off, violating your right to freedom of speech. No, that does not in any way violate your right to freedom of speech. You aren&#x27
25.
by nybble41 4y ago
You're thinking of Bitcoin. In the RSA blinded signature scheme the token holder doesn't need a private key, so there's nothing to reveal. The tokens are signed by the issuer (i.e. the bank), using the issuer's priva
26.
by nybble41 4y ago
> argue that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother The whole point of the amendment is to make it explicit that they don't . That isn't how rights work anyway; it's never a matter of priority, one rig
27.
by nybble41 4y ago
> But, the youtuber would have no way to send them to a third random person. Nothing in the Digicash blinded RSA signature scheme would prevent the tokens from being traded person-to-person any number of times before being presented back
28.
by nybble41 4y ago
Lots of people are negatively impacted by these regulations, even if you personally didn't feel as if you were making much headway in enforcing them. The difference is that you only see meaningful results if you can enforce the regulat
29.
by nybble41 4y ago
The point was that even if you take the absurd position that fetuses have rights, a constitutional right to bodily autonomy would--among other things--make it obviously unconstitutional to force the mother to continue to serve as a host a
30.
by nybble41 4y ago
The fetus clearly has no right to control the mother's body, only its own[0]. Extricate it without otherwise injuring it and see if it can survive on its own, or with whatever degree of medical intervention the "pro-life" c

More ›