My understanding is that's the common ex post rationalization that arose to try to come up with a plausible-sounding reason for this idiotic rule.
1,313 karma · joined March 21, 2012
I used to get angry.
It doesn't necessarily mean the mention was unwarranted or inappropriate.
I've been checking out a fair number of JS Presentation libraries lately, and I really prefer the ones that allow you to scroll, even if the transitions are horizontal.
The logistics behind this might be hard to pull off. I really don't know enough to know whether something like this is feasible, but if the concept was feasible to implement, it seems like you can just publicly announce ahead of time that the system is in place, and it's out of your hands.
For example, if TSA being onerous convinces a significant number of people to drive for their medium distance trips instead of fly, more people will die because driving is more dangerous than flying.
Also, it's not exactly a 1-to-1 comparison, but for every 700,000 hours(ish) you force people to wait or delay their day in some fashion, you're causing an entire lifetime of inconvenience. It's better than taking an infant from its mother and shooting it, but it's still taking an entire lifetime of potential and destroying it through boredom and frustration.
I know I'm leaning pretty heavy on TSA examples here, but we've also seen they can't even reliably stop weapons from coming through security in predictable and repeatable ways. So, "we" decided that a trade off between security and freedom was prudent, we implemented that trade off, and then we found out we only received the downsides and none of the upsides.
Are you planning on writing about the entire process after you've completed your journey?
I built a tongue in cheek tool to keep track of communities like HN that might be relevant to other interests. However, I'm the only one that has ever used it, and I think all the things I've submitted have already been mentioned here.
It's interesting to go back and look at some of the semi-old-school viral content once in a while.
I'm a little surprised Albino Blacksheep (and fetchfido.co.uk apparently) is still running to be honest.
In political betting markets, you can almost always find a +EV bet by betting on the most likely candidate to win because those who are on the side of the underdog always overprice their candidate's chances, some of this can be attributed to buying into the neck-and-neck rhetoric.
It's a lot like the phenomenon where if you include and and twice in a row, you'll likely not realize the typo.
There may be complicated motivations or factors involved, but without at least one person being an "asshat" in any interaction between multiple human beings, you don't get violence.
"Police believe that despite this, the files are still circulating."
I can't believe someone would feel qualified to write an article, especially one that came out today, without explicitly knowing that, yes, the files are most assuredly still "circulating" via torrents.
Edit: Not that I really have an opinion on the policy as it applies to Yahoo specifically.
I don't think a lot of people who haven't been following the topic since the project was first put together really get how much larger and mainstream Bitcoin has become in such a short time with (relatively) so few hiccups compared to what seemed realistically possible when the experiment began.
Also, I think there are a lot of companies that are now considered integral to world economics who, if they had publicly and transparently traded from inception, would have fluctuated just as much in their beginning years.
If you don't expect it to always rise, then you don't have the issue (not that it would necessarily be one) in the first place.
"Backing" is also grossly misunderstood in general.
Any "Backing" a currency has can generally be thought of as an put option on something fungible.
For example, gold will never drop below $10-$20 per Oz because of the industrial/jewelry/etc uses people find for it. However, that "backing" only makes up a small percent of the price of gold.
2. Time preference exists.
3. If this is the one thing in the world that can only get more valuable as time goes on, why aren't you spending your entire net worth on it as we speak?
It's very rarely been approached, by journalists, as "here's an interesting technology. It's a little kooky, but it's getting more popular. I wonder if anything interesting is here?".
Instead, you get either intense fandom or intense vitriol.