fosap

since they tolerate it in the leaders that align with their views.

Which one?

Please RFA.

"The reduction they saw was confined to households that did actually have access to a car"

"They discovered that tightening these laws had no detectable effects on the rate of first and second children".

Also, if i understand it correctly, you have about 50 quasi experiments, one for each state.

Not being depended on craftsman for small things like fixing your toilet safes you a lot of stress in my experience. Not problems with appointments, no waiting, no arguing in case if improper work, no other people in your home.

But you can't order Pizza (or drugs) with Bitcoin anymore. And I don't see much of use case of a currency that can't do that. Without adoption a fiat currency like bitcoin is not worth anything.

Even gold can do that better.

Inside of one coin hashpower makes the winner, because the chain with the most accumulated difficulty wins. It makes sense to transfer this to the relation of different coins. currently BTC wins, but if miners would stick to bch this might change.

It seems there is currently more hashpower behind BCH than BTC. [1] Because of the current price surge mining bch became way more profitable, but this will change with the next adjustment.

If more hashpower sticks with BCH, I would consider it to be the winner.

[1] https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate

It does not change anything substantial about the web today. It will just be a saner output format for compilers than javascript. Unless you write compilers, nothing changes.

It does not matter weather your language compiles to JS or WASM, and it does not matter what the browser executes.

No, is not like that. Both the calf to the cow and bch (bcc ?) to btc are "intrinsic". They are the result of the nature of these things. Not gifts, not accidents, not abritrary.

And coinbase keeps the bch (as they announced), so the bird analogy does not fit at all.

Coinbase can do anything they want!

That's no how laws work. Not even remotely. Thankfully.

Consider you order somebody (X) to transport your pregnant cow. At the destination the cow arrives. It's not pregnant anymore and X refuses to give you the calf because... well, because he can do anything he wants.

That's theft.

Math is not about proofing something, or creating a as big as possible collection of lemmas. Math is about creating structures that can use as tools to solve problems. And problem solving is a task done by humans, so math is only useful if humans understand it and have a intuition.

The real question seems to be legally whether BCH is a gift to those owning BTC or those possessing it. In

Bch is not a gift. Who should have gifted it? Who is the previous owner? How did the previous owner aquire it? It is a "fructus" of btc. And that belongs to the owner.

This right can be signed away, with life estate or usufructus. But that's a big deal. That can't be somewho implied in a sentence hidden somewhere in a long ToS.

You don't own Bitcoin if you don't control the keys.

That's wrong, and obviously so. That concept is "possession" and not "ownership".

What they write in their ToS doesn't matter, it does not change fundamentals of porperty law. (Well, as every legal argument on the internet it depends on your jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the coinbase, as coinbase resides in multiple)

Edited my comment to make it clearer.

There is a difference between ownership and possion. Technically (in the meaning "how it is realized in computer code") bcc is given to the person possessing btc. But by the law the owner is entitled to the profits of a thing. But coinbase does not own my coins, it merely posses them.

Of course. The Bitcoins are still mine, even i keep them in a coinbase wallet. (ownsership vs perssesion). Now every btc owner gets bcc. The owner is me, not coinbase. I gave the persession of by btc to coinbase to trade them eventually, not to give up ownership. And as the owner that never 1) gave away usufruct I'm entiled to all profits from them. See the share/divident analogy.

1) At last not legaly binding, that had to be there at the very least in red flashing letters, possibly even then it would have been void.

Maybe we can use the brute force of a "math superoptimizer" to "compress" it to something far more reasonable. If we teach said opimizer what structures are well understood by humans we might actually understand at last parts.

They can have any stand they want. But they deny me my property.

Imagine a bank anouncing they would keep all the dividends of one particular stock, because the didn't like it. That's what coinbase is doing. It plain and simply theft.

I don't understand why bitcoin is afraid of hardforks. Ethereum hard forks like there is no tomorrow, and so far the number of major block-chain-splits is equal, two. The offical implementation not forking does by no means prevent anybody else from hardforking to begin with, Bitcoin cash demonstrates.

Not even the Plan 9 People use C for web development. And the plan 9 folks _really_ like c.

Most active noise-canceling head-phones work pretty well even if you don't listen to anything.

The last time I did it couldn't even typeset a root. (The line on top and the thing at the front weren't connected)

And in Powerpoint the formulas have constantly different sizes and are distorted. I don't like beamer (a latex package), but it the only viable slide show software for me.

I get a teaching degree. Every discipline as it's own formating requirements. For CS and Physics things have to look good, but there is not too much specified. Everybody uses TeX, length is measured in characters, not pages, usually there is no minimum length, but a maximum length.

For pedagogics there are huge (like 30 pages) formating requirements. The formating requirements itself are incredible ugly and often quite objectively bad. Such as lots of widows and orphans (even in tables!). The document is distributed as a .doc file, and yes it does look like this even in Word, it's not a fault of LibreOffice. Length is measured in pages and the critical limit is the minimum length.

On the subjective side they IMO made the worst possible choices. Arial (or similar), 12 points, almost no margins, 150% spacing between the lines, italic and bold headings.

It looks very bad, is MS Word centric, but they have the nerve to make a style guide longer than a page.

Also, looking at psychology papers, it seems to me that non technical fields have a thing for shitty typography.

It's typesetting DSL, but if you want to typeset you'd need a typesetting meta-DSL. The one thing that works fine with TeX is math, because math typesetting is build in. Typesetting something more specific other than english text and math is hard and ugly.

If does follow imperative paradigms, as it does, the programming language part is essential if you want to do anything meaningful with it. If exotic task you never need in typesetting, such as multiplication, is hard to implement, something is wrong. And IMO that is why LaTeX is so odd and hackish.

Context is much better, tough.

And, by the way, the unfortunalty dead ANT uses a nice Haskell like language and is still a typesetting DSL.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/ant.berlios/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090310012257/http://ant.berlio...

I want to belive, but i have seen serveral TeX alternatives (Such as ANT [1][2] and Rhinotype[3]), but they all die very quickly.

Esp. ANT would have been a fantastic improvement.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090310012257/http://ant.berlio... [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/ant.berlios/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6668551

Namespaces are the least of my worries.

TeX is not a programming language, it's two programming languages. These languages have a self modifying syntax and is parsed with state machines that can be changed. Changing the syntax into something meaningful other is yet quite impossible. It's meant not meant to be able to read markdown or xml.

These Languages are so odd even division of two variables is non-trivial, yet both are truing complete and servly limited, a classic turing tar pit, even division of two variables is nontrivial.

The hole TeX thing is a huge state machine, and uses imperative paradigms, while declaratives would have been much nicer.

All that leads to a horrible, monkey patching coding style.

On the internals there are other horrible things: Unicode was known when it was invented, font formats are a mess (even with XeTeX; I think I can't have another mapping for my the cursive style of a font then for regular. Good thing is the very verbose documentation for fontspec does mention "mapping" twice)

See the HDD "shortage".

I'm not sure, but doesn't the opensuse build service tries to solve these problems? I haven't used it, but I think i slurps source code and builds packages for multiple distributions.

And I absolutely agree with Linus view on linking. I just tried to install ffmpeg on opensuse on a desktop pc. All I wanted was one statically linked binary. I had to dig a wiki, follow outdated build instructions (not nearly enough dependencies where listed, I had to go back several times, configure runs like 20 minutes), it took hours. For one simple binary. FFmpeg could put on their homepage.

Yet out-of-the-box-computing claims to beat all of these by a order of magnitude. I'm looking forward to see how they compare.

HN is pseudonymous, 4chan is mostly anonymous. Probably moot simply isn't a tripfag.

In germany companies in monopoly markets (e.g. power transmission) have a fixed profit margin (I think 10%).

Relevant XKCD: http://dynamic.xkcd.com/random/comic/