Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

expensive.chat

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 215 posts

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#201

Post by zyx321 »

deckar01 wrote: post #177
ultraluminous wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question and not some MRA trolling, but how is that demeaning? How would the etymology of English pronouns would be demeaning to anyone?

The etymology of "woman" is very demeaning. It literally means "wife of man" or "servant". https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

If you click the link for "man" it lists "servant" as one of the Old English meanings, so it stands to reason that a word consisting of the terms for "female" and "servant" would mean a "female servant". Remember that back in the day being a servant used to be the default for most people.

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#202

Post by pbhjpbhj »

NullPrefix wrote: post #104
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #92

Hmm, don't think I'm giving a random site (that breaches EU online business laws: must have an irl address for service) my CC info. If you spend 1¢ on posting ":smiley:" every day, won't that cost him about 20¢ transaction costs? Eventual DoS by CC transaction costs?? Love the spirit of it on an intellectual level though.

>EU online business laws: must have an irl address for service I think that's only in the German speaking part, not the whole EU.

There's a directive from some time ago, maybe 10 years, requiring businesses to put a bricks & mortar address for service on all marketing materials (I modified a few sites at the time), and ecommerce regulations add to that.

eg https://www.iweb.co.uk/2016/09/ecommerce-website-legal-requi...

I can dig out references to the EU directives if you like but they should be easy to find.

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#203

Post by elliekelly »

stakhanov wrote: post #154

It's such an obvious idea, and it has been around for as long as spam e-mail has been a problem. I absolutely do not understand why it has not yet been adopted for all e-mail traffic worldwide. If an e-mail were to cost just one cent, it would never add up to an amount that a normal person would even notice, yet it would solve the problem of spam e-mail over night.

I wonder if this would have the unintended consequence of incentivizing companies to get even more of our personal data so that they're more judicious & targeted in who/what/when they send their emails.

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#204

Post by Terr_ »

jMyles wrote: post #170
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ I also find it culturally interesting that basically every female descriptor I can think of is more characters than the male counterpart.

That's because most of them are modifiers "wo"-men, "fe"-male, etc. Which really is pretty demeaning if you think about it. Over the years, there have been efforts in feminist and academic circles to introduce alternate spellings that are not derived this way. [0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womyn

> Which really is pretty demeaning if you think about it.

Not really: Languages have millions of positive modifiers (including for higher social status) so why assume (and indirectly promote) these ones as automatically pejorative?

Connotations are unrelated to length. Super(wo)man isn't "lesser" just because it takes longer to say, the "default" isn't automatically best.

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#205

Post by noir_lord »

ronlobo wrote: post #158
LeonM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to your comment, I discovered Ling's website, it is a work of art! I love it! [0] https://www.lingscars.com/ [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/li...

Epic :D

View Source ;).

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#206

Post by yellowapple »

billpg wrote: post #182
stakhanov wrote: post #154

It's such an obvious idea, and it has been around for as long as spam e-mail has been a problem. I absolutely do not understand why it has not yet been adopted for all e-mail traffic worldwide. If an e-mail were to cost just one cent, it would never add up to an amount that a normal person would even notice, yet it would solve the problem of spam e-mail over night.

Where would the money go?

Perhaps into a cryptocurrency wallet of my choosing to cover my bandwidth and storage costs incurred by receiving the message?

In fact, I wonder if this could be shoehorned into SMTP somehow? I.e. automatically respond with a unique wallet public key, and only forward the message if said wallet receives a specified payment?

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#207

Post by kristianp »

codeulike wrote: post #134
codeulike wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Front-page of HN and its not working. No-one has said anything for 90 mins. I tried to chat, signed up, nothing happened.

Now it seems to be working for other people, but not for me. Perhaps because I'm not in the USA.

It's blank for me, is it μblock?

Re: Show HN: Expensive Chat – Pay one cent per letter

#208

Post by leetbulb »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #92

Hmm, don't think I'm giving a random site (that breaches EU online business laws: must have an irl address for service) my CC info. If you spend 1¢ on posting ":smiley:" every day, won't that cost him about 20¢ transaction costs? Eventual DoS by CC transaction costs?? Love the spirit of it on an intellectual level though.

A perfect use case for Privacy.com (if you aren't using it already, do it).

-- not affiliated in any way, just a happy user.

Post reply on HN