141–150 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can write anything on a website. That doesn't mean that it is legally binding.
The behaviour of the founders would almost certainly mean the phrase was interpreted as advertising rather than a legal commitment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, people also want to take back losing moves in chess. The whole point of Ethereum was that the code alone specified the contract.
But code is written by humans... have you ever seen code with no bugs? In 20 years of professional development I have not. Given that humans are imperfect, and could even potentially act in bad faith, isn't it reasonable to have an exception clause? I get the argument to not have one; that it's impossible to have favorites and central figures manipulate the system, but nothing is perfect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jesus christ, who the fuck would make two identical symbols differentiated by only capitalisation? (Other than these guys obviously)
What, you mean apart from every Unix ever? (All right, all right, excluding Mac OS X. But it's weird.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't make that clear at all. It just makes clear that the Ethereum community is committed to profiteering rather than decentralization.
I call it decentralization when a huge number of people must agree so the unethical taking of the money is reversed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't make that clear at all. It just makes clear that the Ethereum community is committed to profiteering rather than decentralization.
I call it decentralization when a huge number of people must agree so the unethical taking of the money is reversed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps in some cases a broad consensus mechanism (like hard fork) is preferable to putting it in the hands of 12 random people.
> Perhaps in some cases a broad consensus mechanism (like hard fork) is preferable to putting it in the hands of 12 random people Sounds good in theory. In practice it's mob rule. We have pretty good evidence, i.e. history, that the rule of law is better.
I'd love to see a couple citations for that? Hell, I'd be fascinated to read the experimental setup.
To be truthful, it sounds like someone hooked you with some pseudoscience on poor foundations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with he? I think one can choose one or the other, and the author chose he. There's also the alternative of using he/she every time, but I think that would just be annoying.
Attempting to expand on context that I think the parent left implicit: - Women are underrepresented — in STEM fields at large and in the cryptocurrency space in particular — relative to a fairer world with less sexism, outmoded notions of gender roles, etc. - This underrepresentation self-perpetuates partly because well-meaning men in these fields don't realize it's happening: it always feels better to believe a happ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we do an experiment and use 'she' for anonymous players in these stories? Would be kinda cool. The article uses 'he' throughout, and only acknowledges the possibility of it being either/or/group in the final paragraphs.
No.