divbit

By the way, I don't have the depth of experience or team to build something like this in a way that I would feel happy with, so feel free to please use this idea if you think it is good.

" and related projects such as OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD, OpenSMTPD, LibreSSL, and mandoc. "

Note from the about page: "We are not a registered charity, in the sense that we do not issue tax deductible receipts. " Seems still worthwhile to raise awareness.

Although bitcoin could be used for some bad things, but also there are some (501c) charities that accept bitcoin too,

- give directly

- redcross (used to at least)

- water project

- ..

(there are at least two others but I forget)

So hypothetically (assuming it would pass like sec / whatever regulations) at the right point in time you could make like a coinbase type thing that - buys $30 of bitcoin - automatically watches some exchange API until it appreciates to 'desired amount in US / GBP / Whatever currency you use' - makes the donation automatically at say 10x the value - gets 'the actual registered charity' to send you a non-deductible receipt for that amount, (non-deductible since you no longer 'have control of the coin once it's in the app', which would is essentially the price you pay for getting the increased amount of 'social-benefit', since it's 'going to hurt' to see the potential missed profit, even though the alternative would be to lose the $30 at the earlier time in just a 'tethered' amount)

There is a 'large benefit' to automating / appifying this process to people in that, putting such a system together in one place could lessen the dangers in a manual process of doing this like: lost receipts, hacked exchanges, constantly watching prices, actually dealing with crypto.

In any case, my point is that, given that there is probably 'some good potential to bitcoin (although it might require a team of some creative / dedicated thinking at the right time)' it seems that there might be some benefit from viewing it less as an entrapment / tracking device, and more as a tool for social benefit, and thus making a strong push in the warnings / regulations area to get people on the social benefit track of it's potential use rather than the negative aspects of it. To restate: you have the choice of either guiding bitcoin use towards being a law enforcement tool, or towards being a social benefit / solve world problems tool. I think the recent SEC exchange warnings thing is probably a step towards pushing it in the right direction... (potentially there are some deep sci-fi strategic reasons for viewing crypto-coins in a certain way in terms of desired world progress in a certain direction, which would be interesting to think about).

I was specifically responding to your comment "Responsible, ethical, and careful developments of dangerous technology, even if the danger promises to be reduced compared to the norm in some future iteration, is a must" and not responding to the topic of Uber or specifically self-driving cars.

This is commonly called 'attempting to saving someones butt with a reasonable explanation, rather than trying to make a quick buck / whatever to their detriment.'

With the level of tech commonly posted on this website (and in general), there seem to be many suprising dangers that the average lurker is not going to know about that the experienced developer / whatever will know about. It seems better to seek out and point out (if non-obvious): 'be careful about x,y,z' rather than hide such warnings in obscure blog posts / hope people will understand some kind of implicit message in whatever (especially since some times evidence can be conflicting). A good example of this is the BIS export warning for crypto (assuming in the US), I've talked in the past to several 'experienced' blockchain people who had no idea about this, but if you browse around on enough crypto github pages you can eventually find it.

I wouldn't be suprised if entire countries raised similar 'scape-goat types as sort of 'bat-man' practice for rich aholes with nothing to do.

Assuming interoperability to be a good thing, then, coding something like a c# translation of this is a stimulating and useful intellectual exercise relative to like reading a book or solving a prescribed math problem. Assuming coding problems aren't like fossil fuel for jobs or something, and society hasn't yet reached the state where we can just neglect technology and say 'good enough,' given that (at least according to people I see while locomoting around town), there are still diseases, disabilities (physical and psychological), aging, puns, death, overpopulation, homelessness, variety of experience (I don't know what the correct word for this is, but something like 'non-crunchy-multitude-of-choice'), etc. all which may have solutions with sufficiently advanced technology (with the caveat that it may be like a pandora's box). (You could probably superficially post-justify a solution to these kind of problems in society by strapping an RC radio to everyones head and saying 'karma', but I would guess you can't do that without the being enacting this breaking large parts of the social contract, and essentially ridding life of substance, e.g. 'this thing happened to you because you ate a fish when you were a child, and that fish had a family, and so, relatively, your brain is like a fish-size (lets say chicken because birds are actually pretty smart in the animal hierarchy) to this AI we've constructed, and thus it's eating you, and so therefore, its karmically balanced (that's not really a solution is it, I mean it is, but it's like a military tit for tat solution (even if done subtly) rather than a diplomatic / medical type solution, which would provide more leeway for things like basic fight-or-flight response of humans / miscommunication / speed of actual human thought / etc., which doesn't really fit in the tit-for-tat model)' ). Wow I wrote freaking thesis here (and I didn't really put that long of thought into it, so judge as such, like git commit 1 of an more revised thought).

Although I guess coffee roasters are a thing..

I'm not sure if you are joking, but it does seem that more interoperability is usually a good thing.. (especially for something like a jpeg decoder - maybe it's less useful to have a toaster interface smoothly with some coffee beans)

Ah, well the reply was stated somewhat jokingly, but something along the lines of: if you are investing in a lot other peoples ideas / projects, it sort of implies you are not stingy (sp?) with money / afraid to take a risk with your money (or something like that)... (this assumes that it is an 'honest' investment).

Can you explain your comment to me, because I don't get it?

Camel / needle verse?

Well I guess the 'afaik' in my answer was wrong in this case, it was based on recollection of the last time I held a nature in my hand, and a comparison with a sort of definition as listed here: https://www.library.georgetown.edu/tutorials/scholarly-vs-po....

Sorry to unjustly disparage nature, however, it does not discount the quote I lifted from the post, which is still a valid point.

Afaik nature has good stuff, but it's not like a 'research journal' it's more popular stuff. A quote from the article: "There are only a handful of studies out there that have already attempted to look at this, and they came to wildly different conclusions." So, although I didn't look into this more deeply, it seems to me there is wide room to not take this popular article as 'full confirmation'.

(life insurance good to go)

Thank you

I sent them (is that you scott) an e-mail to delete that last one, due to reasonable evidence for aframe.

Ohhh. Ok Totally forgot about that. Actually I partly sold it so I don't have to worry about the account as I was sort of 'pruning' my password manager. Also partly because, I commented a while ago that I think it's a bit of a rigid, unforgiving technology, compared to e.g. using banks or such for money, where you can get someone to fix any messed up transactions, rather than having to crack sha 256 or whatever if you misplace a secret key. (My guess is that the price will only go up, but have to act according to philosophical beliefs sometimes I guess).

I'm not sure where your coming from with this question, so I won't answer to avoid confusion.

After previously stating on here that I would hold my 5$ of bitcoin forever, I sadly decided to sell them a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure I will regret this some day. Sorry for messing with you guys.

Perhaps we can start with reflecting our societal beliefs w'r't' this stuff via our media to reinforce peoples logical deductions of how to act in these areas. E.g. I think a friend showed me one of the 'revenge of the nerds' movies when I was fairly young, which, if you think of from a perspective this post is advocating, is basically just a movie about people being completely terrible, I guess. I mean, our brains are maybe basically similar to high capacity neural nets, especially before they gain the ability for logical reasoning (or if lost this ability for whatever reason via old age or idk, but seems possible), and thus gain an idea of 'what is acceptable' through the sum total of all relevant situations put in. This would be sort of an application of HN style tech to improving such situations on a more statistical level (I guess), rather than rigidly coding human behavior into a blockchain.

I mean, it would be nice, for the sake of all the people growing up today, if you took something like 'Total Recall' at 5:00 minutes and had them explicitly and robotically ask each other for consent. I think that would do a whole lot more good than having your tinder fling download a 20 gb blockchain onto their cellphone before the date. (Sorry to slightly make fun of this - I think the idea is good actually, and haven't played with it enough, but just wanted to make a point in this direction).

To address this app specifically though- wouldn't such an app not really matter in the direction of: you can always say 'no' during the course, and then the required behavior is to stop. I'm not sure if that would be reflected very well in the app, since the person could point to the consent and say it was given, when in fact, it may have initially been given, but the more important point was that it was (maybe the word is ) rescinded .

Unless you have like a beachfront university, no one should be spending more than ~ 20-21 hours a week at actual working (commute included). Slight caveat 1. once decent VR gets here, and you can make it to a reasonably nice VR beach from home, sort of like in that Valerian movie... but more MMO style. Slight caveat 2. if your work is really fun or (reasonably) progresses the state of humanity to where no one really needs to work / everyone is supermodels / environmental and social problems are all solved etc.

(I say this with out considering it that deeply, but it's probably right.)

I hesitate to post a slight disagreement here because I think, for the most part, Obama is right on the money.

However, I would hesitate to just put the problem on 'just' social media itself - if person A posts a message that says in a supposedly limited setting and person B uses a datacenter of big data AI / neural net / blockchain / VR or whatever fancy technology you want to put this in a much larger setting than the original statement, it is just a slightly clever (one could alternatively say unscrupulous) way for a person B to say what person A is saying, many many times over, and try to hide being behind it.

The same thing happens in real-life (maybe I should say 3-d) discussions, in albeit, a much more nuanced manner, but still with just as great potential effect.

(I guess that's sort of off the thread)

Hypothetical scenario 1: Let's suppose Person A exists for a while and has belief set A. Now person B comes along a while later and /claims/ to be a life-extension clone or something of Person A who is maybe entitled to some of the resources that Person A had available. (Maybe just a different avatar, in video game terms) Should Person B. exhibit some or all of the same beliefs that Person A had in order to claim this? (I would say obviously yes..?)

Hypothetical scenario 2: Suppose that Person A has whatever beliefs in ordinary times, but is put in a stress or otherwise abnormal situation and forced to make whatever decision. Should their decision be their ordinary time logical choice, or their choice under a high amount of stress?

I'm sure I could come up with more scenarios, but the point is, what should be intellectually considered a given person, in circumstances like a simulation where an adversary could heavily muddle the waters.

Here is a more interesting question imho: Assuming we are in a simulation, how does a person make sure that their thoughts are 'really their own' and not sort of programmed in. E.g. How does a person make sure that they are not a robot, that they are not being manipulated to e.g. vote for someone, have whatever political view, do this or that thing.

It kind of feels like someone made a fairly well-intentioned simulation, and then some other people came along and hacked it for their own benefit, taking away a large part of the value proposition, and leaving a mildly shitty simulation for the remaining people. I guess that sort of thing would be inevitable.

Sidenote: Given the types of people that are traditionally familiar with public key use (journalists, linux users, etc.), and weird tax situations these highly fluctuating, unregulated type things might create, sometimes I wonder if cryptocoins might be a tool used by unscrupulous governments or such to knock-off opponents (certainly not in this case, but given that it's a global thing, it could be anyone... ).