231–240 of 379 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then flag and rate limit all the people who responded, too. That said, I don't see that asking someone to express decency and respect when commenting is ever off topic, and should never be flagged.
The choice to get offended by something as innocuous as the OP is not something I want in my tech discussions so I flagged it. I’m sure many others feel the same way. We don’t need tone policing here.
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"?
I promise I'm not being antagonistic just because I disagree with you (a qualifier that shouldn't even be necessary but eggshells are abundant in this thread right now), it's weird to me to hear this because I grew up in a time in a culture where dude 100% was gender neutral and it was celebrated[1] as such [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMODweN8lQ
I asked a question. I'm not sure what there is to disagree about.
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.
From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!
>Internet rando 2: What about people who live under oppressed governments with unsound currency
>Me: Only if the problem with their currency is that it's not volatile enough and the transaction speeds are too fast
>"People are sick of the Federal Reserve, sick of bailouts, sick of inflation. You know what we need? Internet money with the usability of PGP and the stability of BART service"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this chick I can't, just can't, not in 2018, leave "this chick" without a remark: it sounds rather derogatory. Please be more respectful.
I apologize if the word offends you. It was both intentioned to be non offensive (which should be apparent from my admiration for her WORK while giving no fucks about her as a person) and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory. Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Now does anyone know where I can find that w…
If you saw me at a bar, forgot my name, and said "hey you're that dude from the other day" I wouldn't mind.
All about context. She's a professional and this is a professional context. "Chick" isn't a huge deal, and I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive. But it reflects a level of informality that isn't appropriate for the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a hard time seeing most places wanting to accept payment in an asset as volatile as Bitcoin. I have an even harder time seeing any of those people who invest in bitoin using their coins for purchases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> always been a community made up of shady folks 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…
I think your analysis is a bit heavy-handed. Most people have a common understanding of this word. Referring to a woman as "this chick" is obviously a tone that lacks respect and most American males understand the subtle differences in connotation between "chick" and "dude". Yes, they are mostly interchangeable but in certain contexts the word "chick" can carry a somewhat dismissive tone with a little more intensity…
Since that person is not present, it is best to be as formal as possible.
Call men "a man", call women "a woman", boys "a boy" and girls "a girl". Using words like "babe", "chick", "kiddo" for people you don't know is a blatant lack of respect.
Using "a chick" in the current context is plain wrong to me. It's fine if you know her, but talking about a third-party this way is disrespectful from my point of view.
My issue with this comment has nothing to do with gender or feminism. It is all about the correct use of words when addressing strangers.
ELI5: why does the world need a larger number of cryptocurrencies vs fewer/one instead? (I’m not holding any position, I just want to understand the logic for either case)
Alternatives (even though it takes more keystrokes) could be along the lines of "pardon my ignorance", "I'm new to this" or even simply "can someone explain". I bet these would receive just as good (if not better) responses.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Good. The amount of crazy ICO's I've seen is staggering. Most of them are surely scams in some sense. Reddit is filled with them.
What I think is most bizarre - I have friends with really decent businesses that try really, really hard to get a few hundred thousand in funding. And yet I see the most _terrible_ ideas with an ICO cap of 20 million dollars. Still people throw in the cash. Ideas with literally no need for a blockchain. But "everyone will be able to spend the token on [insert terrible idea]!" 'The most bespoke electric hypercar! With…
At a certain point I have to wonder if this is working along the lines of a lemon market. Coin investors don't know for certain whether they're being scammed, so they want an offer that will have positive expectation even after adjusting for scam risk. But founders do know, somewhat, the value of their ideas - and honest players are bounded by what they can actually return, while the deluded or dishonest can promise the moon. Eventually it only becomes possible to get investments by lying to people.
There are forces that should act as a brake here, of course; a sober idea asking for $200k ought to have lower risk than a stupid idea asking for $20M. But for some reason, that sort of risk discrimination isn't really happening at the moment. Maybe investors are over-eager, maybe the scam rate is so high at all price points to bury useful information, but it certainly looks like bad ideas are actually doing better.