181–190 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a NULL transaction to/from that address encoded the string "pineapplefund.org" https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/c44ad5f83ddc84d08967c765...
That transaction cost 20€. Ouch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anecdote I heard was that the extra space made it more clear when sentences were ending based on how the fixed-width typeface would read. With proportional fonts the spacing is already clear enough with 1 space, and that has become the conventional thing. So adding the extra space creates too much space now. It certainly sends a signal to me that the person has absorbed a “rule”, but not its purpose, which I thin…
> With proportional fonts the spacing is already clear enough with 1 space. That's your opinion, and a bizarre one at that, since one-space isn't any more clear in a proportional font than a non-proportional font. Proportional fonts help pack letters within a word, not pack words within/between sentences. > It certainly sends a signal to me that the person has absorbed a “rule”, but not its purpose, It sends a signal…
I was probably wrong to try and fuzzily remember an anecdote rather than look it up :) but my understanding was that in a proportional font the combination of a period and space was good enough to show the end of the sentence clearly for whatever reason.
> It sends a signal to me that a person looks for bizarre ways to feel superior to others, instead of trying to understand why someone behaves differently.
This is fair. Though I promise I don’t feel superior to pretty much anybody if that helps. Learning about this actually came from wondering why some people used two spaces after sentences, not starting out judgmental. I think I was mainly thinking of formal contexts where you would already be judging somebody's choices (resume, professional portfolio, publications) more so than just random language use in comments or whatever. But I didn't put my finger on that last night!
I had this uneasiness writing my own comment and reading your comment, and did some actual reading this morning, and this turns out to be one of those things where the story I absorbed about it was too simple. There seems to be ongoing debate about this just like everything else, and even though most publishers and editors prefer 1 space after a sentence. I had though I heard that spaces after periods actually render a little wider anyway but that seems to be wrong?
I knew I worded my comment kind of badly and probably shouldn’t have made it in the first place. But at lest posting it helped me get corrected on my assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the fact that the two spaces before a period far predate the typewriter.
Wider sentence spacing certainly predates the typewriter, but the question then was not "how many spaces" but "how much space". Someone writing by hand obviously does not count a discrete number of spaces, and a cold-metal typesetter has a wide variety of spaces available: they might use a one-and-a-half-en space (either a single piece of type or an en space followed by a half-en space) or an em space. It must have b…
Come to think about it, why not the movable type printing press as the starting point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, as someone with a number of friends just now "getting into" bitcoin, I find the zero sum aspect of it troubling. Assuming a crash/correction is coming, most of the wealth that accrued to the early adopters will be at the expense of these later, less-informed "investors" who bought in thinking it was a no fail quick buck.
This a 100 times. The crypto currency hype only (or at least mainly) redistributes wealth, in my eyes to (tech savvy) people-with-means-already. Yes there might be empowering stories of "smart single moms" making serious money by betting on Bitcoin, but as a whole it only enlarges income equality between people, arguably one of the issues of our time.
I am young, have a high income and a tiny net worth. I got lucky by buying a tiny amount of bitcoin a few years ago purely because I was interested in the tech. There's lots of things about my situation, and the situation of other people in my society which are unfair. But baby-boomers with nest eggs cashing me out because they feel entitled to make an easy buck and are buying something they don't understand doesn't seem like the most important injustice.
Congrats on your fortune. This is a very honorable thing to do. But my real question is: How on earth did you manage to resist selling your holdings for such a long time after you crossed the $1MM mark? That's some superhuman level of self control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, as someone with a number of friends just now "getting into" bitcoin, I find the zero sum aspect of it troubling. Assuming a crash/correction is coming, most of the wealth that accrued to the early adopters will be at the expense of these later, less-informed "investors" who bought in thinking it was a no fail quick buck.
Hi, creator of the Pineapple Fund here (pineapplefund.org/verification.txt) I am actually quite sad to see the current state of the cryptocurrency community, and how people in it these days widely misrepresent the risk and intricacies of bitcoin/crypto. When I first got into bitcoin, most people were there because they were fascinated in building a decentralized currency. Profit seeking was always a part, but not the…
There's only two ways this bubble will burst:
1. Inflation: the value of fiat currencies drops to match the supposed value of bitcoin, which negatively affects everyone
2. Only the first people to cash out actually turn a profit. Every other person who invested will lose everything.
Either way, the money you now made from bitcoin, came from people who will probably lose their savings contributing to the bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This a 100 times. The crypto currency hype only (or at least mainly) redistributes wealth, in my eyes to (tech savvy) people-with-means-already. Yes there might be empowering stories of "smart single moms" making serious money by betting on Bitcoin, but as a whole it only enlarges income equality between people, arguably one of the issues of our time.
But who does it redistribute the wealth from? Is it broke people, people working several jobs on minimum wage, people who have to use food pantries, people trapped in debt? Not at all. It's people who already have a bunch of liquid assets to play with. People who have earned decent money, saved it and previously were invested in the stock market, gold, savings accounts. Not necessarily rich people (not just rich peop…
At least in Europe, it is not uncommon that bank/pension/state funds (in effect: everybody's money) buy in latest to these stocks.
Allocating resources in society is a hard problem, and capital markets overall provide a valuable service in deciding where resources should go. But when some of these markets function more or less like a lottery (or ponzi scheme), I don't see why a society should support (or even worse: idolize) its participants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This a 100 times. The crypto currency hype only (or at least mainly) redistributes wealth, in my eyes to (tech savvy) people-with-means-already. Yes there might be empowering stories of "smart single moms" making serious money by betting on Bitcoin, but as a whole it only enlarges income equality between people, arguably one of the issues of our time.
But who does it redistribute the wealth from? Is it broke people, people working several jobs on minimum wage, people who have to use food pantries, people trapped in debt? Not at all. It's people who already have a bunch of liquid assets to play with. People who have earned decent money, saved it and previously were invested in the stock market, gold, savings accounts. Not necessarily rich people (not just rich peop…
That's condescending, hypocritical bullshit. Why do you feel entitled to "cashing out" on their savings because you're tech savvy?
> Not necessarily rich people (not just rich people), but well-off people who have money they don't need sitting around.
This is straight up delusional. I'm appalled that you would spend so much time describing who you think invests in cryptocurrencies, just to justify yourself profiting off them. Actually, most people who invest in the stock market know better than to get involved with bitcoin. Most people who hyped its value lately are the kind of people who have no idea what's about, invest poorly and have fewer funds. [1]
So yes, most likely your profit came from "broke people, people working several jobs on minimum wage, people who have to use food pantries, people trapped in debt". At least don't try to pretend it's otherwise.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/amp/2017/12/12/bitcoin-mania-mortag...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, as someone with a number of friends just now "getting into" bitcoin, I find the zero sum aspect of it troubling. Assuming a crash/correction is coming, most of the wealth that accrued to the early adopters will be at the expense of these later, less-informed "investors" who bought in thinking it was a no fail quick buck.
Hi, creator of the Pineapple Fund here (pineapplefund.org/verification.txt) I am actually quite sad to see the current state of the cryptocurrency community, and how people in it these days widely misrepresent the risk and intricacies of bitcoin/crypto. When I first got into bitcoin, most people were there because they were fascinated in building a decentralized currency. Profit seeking was always a part, but not the…