byset

Ah, then sorry for the flip reply. I look in on Reddit's r/bitcoin from time to time but there can be a low signal to noise ratio. I guess I follow the journalists Kyle Torpey (who has an email newsletter), Aaron van Wirdum of Bitcoin Magazine and other outlets, and Paul Vigna of WSJ. Adam Back, Jameson Lopp, Peter Todd, Pierre Rochard, and Pieter Wuille are good community members and Twitter follows.

From places that don't promote silly theories, apparently.

No, it resolves uncertainty and lets the community move forward in a unified way. It also shows Bitcoin's resilience in the face of committed minorities who would try to take over its governance. In short, Bitcoin survived a coup d'état, achieving total victory over a rebellious group of powerful actors (CEOs mainly).

I guess people say all kinds of things, but I don't recall anyone arguing that Bitcoin was going up because of the impending fork. It certainly wasn't the conventional wisdom.

I didn't get that impression. Paragraph two says they have "the most advanced self-driving software ever demonstrated," which has been in use driving cars around in real city traffic on their prototypes or whatever (according to their youtube videos), but the article seems to be saying that they now have designed and built mass-producible cars that can run the software. (If I'm wrong, then yeah, not only the title but the whole article is misleading.)

I guess I'm nitpicking, and the guy probably just needs an editor, but the whole tone of this post seemed tiresomely self-congratulatory to me. "Look at how frank and empathetic and open I am! Look at me ruthlessly dissect my own mistakes! Isn't that refreshing?"

It also all seems a bit maudlin — being laid off is a terrible thing, but mistakes happen and employees are aware of risks going in (although as others have noted, this type of situation underscores how inappropriate the whole "we're a big family" idea is). It would seem more respectful to the laid-off employees not to go on and on in this manner.

I think the worst thing about this is that once you hit the button, you wouldn't get any more replies from that thread. Is this really how it worked — that Gmail essentially shut you out of subsequent replies to the conversation in a non-undoable way? (Edit: Maybe you could revive the ability to get replies by un-archiving the thread? Does anybody know?) It just makes explaining yourself in the event of a mistake (and even viewing the fallout) that much harder.

It also looks like they put the button where "Send" would normally go. Mistakes seem inevitable; this is pretty mind-boggling.

What is the basis for this comment? I'm sure that a lot of people who are "happy at this guy being indicted" are not economic libertarians.

Also, who defends economic libertarianism "for the sole reason that it allows them to pay less taxes, regardless of what's in the public interest"? I know that's a favorite caricature of libertarians that's dear to those who don't agree with libertarianism, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Not that your comment is particularly worth of discussion, but you'd think there would better reasoning behind calling out a broad category of commenters out as being "disgustingly selfish".

I didn't think they could make it look any more as if it were aimed at 5-year-olds, but they've done it.

Seriously, though, it's probably a better logo. It's simpler and has a more weight while the old one was kind of overly light and spindly. I wouldn't be surprised if the next step in the logo's evolution would ditch the candy colors and go with a single color, in which the new logo would look just fine. That might strike some as sacrilege but it would work much better as a logo and look less like a set of plastic toys for preschoolers.

The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Plus you can't rely on fine print in the T&C to absolve you of engaging in a fraudulent business relationship, that's not how contracts are enforced.

The highest paid tier, for $249, includes an "Affair Guarantee." You could still claim that even so, men are just paying for a fantasy, but at those prices, and with the supposed "guarantee," they seem to venturing into fraud territory.

Still fraud, methinks. Having some accounts for "entertainment purposes" accounts is one thing, taking money from men -- with an "affair guarantee" at the top tier -- to let them message "women" nearly 100% of whose accounts are fake is another.

As the writer of the Gizmodo exposes said, it was like cheating Farmville.

Well, I mean, there were consequences--as the article said, there's now malware out there that uses the exploit this guy publicized.

On average, I'd say that the ratio of financial payoff to "effort" in music or photography is much, much smaller than in, say, software engineering.

I feel victim to this a while back and documented it here: http://marknugent.tumblr.com/post/98203319356/linkedins-evil...

That seems a bit unfair. Are open-source participation and spec work really analogous? How often are programmers asked by a client to complete a project, so the client can decide afterwards whether to pay?