221–230 of 379 posts
We've created a generation of people who will do anything they are told to do. Now these big corps and governments feel like they have to baby-proof the world because we've created a bunch of lemmings who will give all their money to an ICO because a banner told them to.
Please. People have always been gullible, it's just that the scams have moved to more lucrative enterprises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except paranoid dorks are not the ones scamming. It's a completely different group of people who created the space, and completely different one that twisted it into a farce, created thousands of scam ICOs and altcoins that make no sense. Well, some overlap actually might be there, but not that much.
It was only a handful of engineers who "created the space" to begin with, so even though there isn't much overlap, it's pretty much always been a community made up of shady folks, it's only that the fraudsters have become less technically sophisticated and more brazen as activity has increased and the blockchain community has grown and continued to radiate cosmic rays of hype.
That's not fair. Shady folks are just getting more publicity. Noone talks about people who created stuff that works and doesn't scam people. And there's a lot of such stuff. This space is growing because of such people, despite the shady folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Dude is gender neutral. Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea. By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea". There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt. Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individu…
"Dude is gender neutral." When everyone you've ever known, and all media you've ever seen, for 30 years, has exclusively used "dude" for males only, is it really "gender neutral"?
Googling "Is dude gender neutral?" results in a lot of sites telling you that it is.
"In the early 1960s, dude became prominent in surfer culture as a synonym of guy or fella. The female equivalent was "dudette" or "dudess," but these have both fallen into disuse, and "dude" is now also used as a unisex term." Dude - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude
Wow thanks for that, this chick seems awesome. Maybe my reading comprehension is shit but I never saw where she linked to her 'centralized feelings on bitcoin' or whatever. Did anyone see where that is? I've been sitting here in my little traditional finance world shaking my head at Bitcoin for years and would love to see her much more elegantly written tear down.
There was another thread commenting on the usage of the term "chick" and how it can be interpreted as derogatory. I agree that this term can be derogatory because it can be condescending. The commenter who took offense was flagged, and nested replies derided the commenter for taking offense. I am really disappointed to see the hacker news community unable to appreciate the nuance of this discussion. I know this term…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except paranoid dorks are not the ones scamming. It's a completely different group of people who created the space, and completely different one that twisted it into a farce, created thousands of scam ICOs and altcoins that make no sense. Well, some overlap actually might be there, but not that much.
It was only a handful of engineers who "created the space" to begin with, so even though there isn't much overlap, it's pretty much always been a community made up of shady folks, it's only that the fraudsters have become less technically sophisticated and more brazen as activity has increased and the blockchain community has grown and continued to radiate cosmic rays of hype.
This is so clearly false that it overshadows the rest of your comment. You _cannot_ claim these things without proof and your point is so easily disproven that it's not worth the time to even do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of cryptocurrency advertising is aimed directly at taking advantage of investors who probably don't know how to do proper diligence on such an early and untested technology. I would put this squarely in the same vein as ads that might encourage you to 'buy our gemstone, it's going to be the new diamond'. Or 'our baseball cards are first edition and guaranteed to go up in value', etc.
I always thought the "guaranteed to go up in value" claim was silly. If it's guaranteed to go up in value, why would they want to sell it to me?
It's a bit like how poorly written spam makes professional-looking phishing look more convincing to the average person.
The most effective scams are the ones that fool people who think they couldn't have been fooled. Heck, you see it all the time with car advertisements, etc.
I was listening to terrestrial radio the other day and was surprised to hear a radio advertisement beckoning retirees to cash in their 401ks to join the cryptocurrency future of Bitcoin and Ethereum. The bubble is too big for Google to slow it down and it has grown beyond the realm of tech savvy geeks into something fueled by hype and hubris.
I've tend to chat with drivers when I take Lyft, and frequently mention that I'm a programmer. Several of the drivers have then asked me about cryptocurrency, mostly Bitcoin and Ethereum. I try to discuss how technically interesting they are, but how financially shaky; that there is likely a bubble and that they are probably not good long term investment options but could be worth buying a little bit for fun. We are…
I have an even harder time seeing any of those people who invest in bitoin using their coins for purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a service provider and can decide what to allow and disallow on their platform.
Not really. They can't decide to disallow bussiness run by black people or Slovenians. There's a law against that. For a large monopolies like that, it might be wise to expand anti-discrimination laws to include more things. At least that's my opinion. What if Google decides to disallow all mentions and all possible advertisements of a certain political party? What if it deletes all your emails without warning, becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Dude is gender neutral." When everyone you've ever known, and all media you've ever seen, for 30 years, has exclusively used "dude" for males only, is it really "gender neutral"?
It is generally accepted as gender neutral. Lately, I've seen a lot of LGBT communities encouraging its use. Googling "Is dude gender neutral?" results in a lot of sites telling you that it is. "In the early 1960s, dude became prominent in surfer culture as a synonym of guy or fella. The female equivalent was "dudette" or "dudess," but these have both fallen into disuse, and "dude" is now also used as a unisex term."…
Googling "Is dude gender neutral?".... why would I even have that question if my entire community has never called that in to question in the first place?