221–230 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really but it’s a long discussion. In any case in this sense the author coul also throw other kinds of conspiracies unrelated. True journalism ! Add your sauce
Yes, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto has attracted almost every type of criminal under the sun, to the detriment of 'regular' people who got conned into this stuff and is now left holding the bags. That German saying is on point and really sad.
> Crypto has attracted almost every type of criminal under the sun This is actually quite a profound statement. Is there actually anything in human history that can come close to rivalling this ? We have everyone from teens promoting shitcoins on TikTok, to household celebrities like Matt Damon, to white collar criminals, to arguably VCs, all the way to nation states like Iran and North Korea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say the onus is on reporters to not take money in exchange for glowing coverage. Having a mortgage to pay is no excuse. If you can't be an honest reporter, don't report at all. I think that's a reasonable standard to hold them to. If you can't hack it as an honest reporter, then go get a job in retail or something. Anybody who took money from these people is not a victim.
Is there any evidence at all that any of these reporters were taking money vs. just writing up company press releases as news? And more generally, how do you square this stance with the near universal HN view that tech coverage is too biased against tech companies?
Yes. Being discussed now on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33593234
> And more generally, how do you square this stance with the near universal HN view that tech coverage is too biased against tech companies?
Cynically, they give negative coverage by default to encourage "charitable giving". When the org starts "donating" money to journalists, the tone of the coverage flips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto doesn't pose an existential threat to the NYT business model like social media and search do. I.e. The NYT is in the advertising business. Google, Facebook, et al are direct competitors.
> The NYT is in the advertising business. Google, Facebook, et al are direct competitors. The NYT is in the "providing content to lure people to advertisers" business. They don't sell ads to third parties. They could be very symbiotic with Google, for example. If Google was searching their content, bringing readers in, and supplying ads. But, instead, Google scrapes their content and helps people never visit their si…
What does that mean? The NYT sells ads, i.e. you can pay the NYT to have your advertisement shown in the NYT. Google sells ads, i.e. you can pay Google to have your advertisement shown in Google results. The NYT and Google sell the same thing. They are competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin is provably the only decentralized system that has permissionless, borderless, digital scarcity. Other cryptocurrencies are less secure (the many direct forks, such as Bitcoin Cash and the like), less decentralized (Solana, BNB), less permissionless (any system that can be halted by its operators) or less scarce (Ethereum's emission schedule can be changed by a single organisation). Bitcoin's value (not in te…
You are describing a pyramid scheme, but in word salad format.
It's 100% voluntary and makes zero promise of some fantastical ROI (unlike every non-Bitcoin cryptocurrency).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And privacy coins come with the appended issue that software issues could hide an inflation bug, which isn't provable at that moment. Is Bitcoin anonymous? Nope, but with some diligence, you can be quite protected.
I don't see an advantage in holding Bitcoin over say, stocks, other than speculation, if for every transaction you have to choice to either identify yourself or produce tainted Bitcoin.
It’s amazing to me that enough people still believe in the crypto scam to keep pumping BTC above $15k. I guess they are still managing to mint fools at a fast enough pace to keep the price up.
Tether keeps BTC above 15k IMO. They keep printing more anytime it starts to dive. Will tether survive the bank runs?
It’s amazing to me that enough people still believe in the crypto scam to keep pumping BTC above $15k. I guess they are still managing to mint fools at a fast enough pace to keep the price up.
It's incredible that SBF was being touted by Sequoia, WEF, Fortune, chumming it up with Clinton and Blair in the Bahamas, getting meetings and kid glove treatment with the SEC, relatively glowing profile as a "do-gooder" by the NYT. All while FTX had a Chief Regulatory Officer who was basically a career white-collar criminal. It beggars belief that anyone who dug half an inch into this story wouldn't have seen 90,000…
Also, this is Alameda's CEO. https://youtu.be/aW6SqLXw944 Un fucking believable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dominos would be my counterpoint: their pizza was just bad and they could do better. And they did. I think it’s entirely possible that an industry with low competition and high nepotism could just be doing their jobs poorly. Isn’t that why Joe Rogan is more popular than CNN?
Dominos is still terrible from a gourmet food perspective. They went from abysmal to merely bad. Which is fine at that price point and value prop.
They're not trying to be gourmet food, they're trying to be fast food. They were very bad by even that low standard, and they became better by that standard. I'm still not a fan, but to give credit where credit is due, they did improve.