midev

I really don't understand how you jumped to this condescending conclusion.

If you believe that financial regulations are the "nanny", you probably only have a child-like understanding of things. In that case, condescension is warranted. It means you don't have the experience needed to comment seriously on the topic.

It is here to replace a faulty and completely outdated financial infrastructure

Yet it performs worse in every measurable metric. How many transactions per second can Bitcoin sustain? Four, lmao.

The same laws against criminals apply whether they use crypto or not.

One does not need to be a criminal for proper regulations to apply. Again, this is the immaturity of people commenting.

I can protect my own money, thank you. I do not need a nanny

I love when people out themselves as having never worked on anything significant. Yeah, sure, for your pocket change, I'm sure you can reasonably protect it. For any significant transaction, I want the ability to reclaim my money if the other side turns out to be fraudulent.

They failed, by definition

That's not what "by definition" means...

This article is nonsense, and typical of intellectually dishonest right-wingers. They always claim that it was actually regulation the whole time that caused the problems! Wow! Yet we can look at the regulations the author cites, and what were ultimately the reasons for the end of wildcat banks, and see those were obviously not the cause.

Regardless, the lessons learned are still applicable today. Whether wildcat banks were common or not doesn't change that most cryptocurrencies mirror the failed wildcat banks of the past.

It's kind of a dumb question, to be fair. It should be fairly obvious that I'm trying to sway the people reading the comment.

that were wrong about crypto years ago

No, they were exactly right. In ten years, cryptocurrencies have produced nothing of value except speculation. This is like saying the Dutch that didn't sell their homes to buy into the tulip bulb craze were wrong. Sure, people have made huge gains, like all ponzi schemes generate. Most are bagholders, though.

even as crypto is clearly changing the world like the internet did in the 90s and mobile in the 00s.

Crypto hasn't changed a single thing about the world. There is not a single popular thing backed by crypto. Every example you gave in this thread was either weak, like that DeFi Pulse link, or just straight not even using crypto, like Eco.

When you as an expert can't even identify a popular product using crypto at it's core, it doesn't speak very highly.

I have been full-time in crypto for years. I could write you a 10,000-word essay on crypto's promising use cases. But, I believe that you, and many others on HN, don't want to hear it.

I am an actual cryptographer and would love to read world salad like that.

That's too bad, because you guys grew up on sci-fi and rigor, and now you're ignoring that crypto is both rigorously successful and cypherpunk sci-fi come to life.

Stop. Libertarian dorks that don't understand the history of finance is hardly the sci-fi we want.

The part where they said 10 years later there is still no actual applications or use, and someone responded with https://defipulse.com/

I think if a self-proclaimed crypto expert gives you this link as proof of use cases, you would walk away thinking the technology was pathetic.

So you're saying he betrayed the United States for a far worse, criminally oppressive regime? Everything in your comment makes him out to be a far bigger piece of shit. He betrayed the world for Russia, and now has far more deaths on his hands.

Damn you made me think even less of Snowden. You should tell more people about Bill Browder's story.

Oh yeah I forgot how revered he is. Which is why he's hiding in oppressive regimes, lol.

Even in the tech community, the most sympathetic group possible, half the people revile him as a self-serving traitor.

Nobody takes him or his supporters serious. Hard to hear, I know.

I love it. He leaves for one of the most repressive countries in the world, but gets a pass because he's critical of the United States.

This is why nobody takes him or his supporters seriously.

Fortune cookies are rarely good advice. Him aligning himself with actual evil diminishes anything he has to say.

It makes him a self-serving hypocrite.

The parent didn't say anything close to this.

You need to calm down and read what's actually written, otherwise you're going to make liberals look like uneducated, unhinged, lunatics.

I can be critical of CNN without praising Fox News....

The computer is supposed to make our lives better, we should not be required to make the computer’s (or programmers’) life better

Yes... The computer is at fault for not supporting proper names... That's literally what everyone has said. Nobody blamed the user....

Your attitude reminds me of the people in the 60s who included punch cards in the utility bills, marking them “DO NOT FOLD, SPLINDLE, OR MUTILATE” (it became a meme).

The problem should be fixed, but it's not victim blaming to tell someone how to still submit their bill.

And you are saying that somehow I am at fault?

No... I'm literally saying the opposite.... I think you need to reread your comment, then my comment.

Telling you to omit those characters so you can still travel internationally is not blaming you in any way shape or form... Your criticism of practical advice being victim blaming is harmful and unhelpful.

This is not true. It doesn't even make sense. Pithy comments generally don't describe the real world.

"We are in development and do not yet have a working product" - Not a lie

"We have finished development and have a working product ready for patients" - Lie

No it's not. It's not even remotely victim blaming. At no point did anyone even remotely hint it was their fault.

People have taken this to a ridiculous level. Giving practical advice about how to avoid problems is not blaming the victim. Telling my child to look both ways before crossing the street is not blaming him if he gets hit. It's not wanting to see him get hurt when the person actually at fault fucks up. Telling someone to avoid non-ASCII characters because a program can't handle it is not blaming them....

Your comment was unhelpful. Great! Not their fault! What now? It's also part of a larger trend that will lead to people being hurt.

Something tells me the amount of drugs purchased with fiat currency is exponentially more than the amount purchased with cryptocurrency.

In raw numbers? Sure. Everyone uses fiat and nobody uses cryptocurrenices.

If you compare percentage of transactions, though, cryptocurrencies are almost all illegal transactions.

Rookie mistake comparing raw numbers and not percentages.

I still don't get it. You cancel the account, it should be gone like it never happened

As long as that change cascades to every single site that the user could have registered with.

Otherwise, there could be hundreds or thousands of sites waiting to email confidential information to a new person.

If you think requiring the ability to delete your account is "developer hostile", you're exactly why this provision needs to exist. Apple is giving you six months to stop fucking your users. Sorry not sorry :\

You have to be crazy to stake your company on apple's goodwill at this point

My company has an app on the app store. We do a few hundred million dollars in sales via the app. Are we crazy?

There are no known quantum attacks, so it's pretty pointless for most people to consider it in their threat models.

If you're a nation state that needs to protect information for 30+ years, then it's worth considering. For everyone on HN, it's not.

I don't think that's what the OP means, though. It's not "decent" people doing evil things. It's great people doing great things, within an organization that also does bad things.

There are some amazing people on their safety and moderation teams. They're also fighting marketing algorithms, I'm sure.

They explained why they felt it was a bad comparison. Why did you ignore that part?

If an analogy is bad, it's bad. The parent explained why they felt it was bad. If you want to "engage seriously", you should address why their points about the analogy are wrong.

You're assuming there's some benevolent God who can arbitrate who's right and who's wrong

Literally nobody assumes this. Please don't invent strawmen.

The point is, even with all the failings of the courts, different interpretations of language, and every other flaw, it's still better than having no recourse at all.

There's fraud where people buy an item online, then claim they never received it and get their payment refunded while keeping the item.

And of course, the blockchain solves none of this. It just makes rectifying the problem far more difficult.

you are an unpleasant person to talk with

I'm glad you picked up on my tone. I'd suggest not writing pointless criticism.

Them: "Hey, we wanted to build an API!" You: "What if you don't build an API, and just download a file? That's the same right?"

it wasn't meant to be condescending, it was meant to be a serious technical critique of what appears to be a publicly advertised product

Oh, I think everyone was confused because there was no serious technical critique. You made a flippant comment about disk space and network latency. Basic observations that anyone building this would have considered.

You can see from all the comments that everyone viewed you as condescending and unhelpful. You might want to revisit your writing style, since your intentions are not clear to anyone.

Or even buy a copy of the book! We can do anything if we throw out all our requirements!

Can you explain how I'd make calls from a frontend to a PDF? I'd like to include various search terms, and then get back well-structured data.

Is this something PDF's recently started supporting?

Or maybe there is a interesting and expected answer that provides a learning experience?

Then it should be phrased like that. It's obvious the original comment was phrased as a condescending question, especially since they tried to answer it themselves.

There's a difference between genuine interest and trying to show off how smart you are.

Maybe it’s because the education system has failed at critical thinking

Sure, education can improve things. But this is a problem even worse outside the United States, so it's hard to blame it on a single education system.

you would rather truth be determined by governments or corporations than left up to individuals to decide for themselves?

Didn't say anything of the sort. And truth isn't determined by any of them. Which agin, proves the point. I had a comment with only three sentences, and you managed to misread it.

I'm not for corporate or government censorship, but people that can't read comments correctly are a much bigger problem.

they can't be trusted to use their own logic and moral faculties to determine right from wrong

History has shown this to be true over and over and over. We even have evidence to this: https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-f...

Fake news travels faster and convinces more people than the truth.

Ah, more of Zuckerberg's jealousy because Snapchat refused their acquisition offer?

This sounds like a complement, to be honest. If we get awesome, real, AR glasses because Zuckerberg is jealous, then more power to him.