flush

how is this possible

Is there somewhere that explains this concept? When I "receive" something, there still must be trust that I correctly mark it so. By that point, doesn't it require trust, and therefore you may as well just use a trusted third party data store?

FWIW, I read it incorrectly the first time too and had to do a double-take. I do think it's not written in the clearest manner.

This on its own isn't enough to refute OP, since it could very well be that the equivalent cost of one of these other historic buildings is even higher. (e.g. cost of skilled slave labor vs equivalent labor in modern markets, cost of materials, etc)

EDIT: Hmm, even the payer's power could be factored in. A king may be willing to spend 1/10th of his empire's wealth on an extravagant palace, but the same would likely not be approved in a democracy.

Thank you for such a high quality comment.

Definitely not a _new_ weakness, right? The vast majority of financial wealth is locked up in digital stores, which are even more so in the jurisdiction and immediate control of their respective governing body.

There are many other artists who can paint. Does not make their art equally valuable.

The no-soap rule came from back when soap contained lye, which does indeed strip the seasoning from cast iron. This knowledge was passed down, and became false as soap changed formulas. Not because of "hipster culture", by which I think you mean consumerism. Try to have an open mind.

>He realised that he would not only have to slash his salary, but also mortgage his two houses and give up his stocks and savings.

Not sure if this means ALL of his stock, but this doesn't seem to be the same thing.

Psyched to try it! Any idea what the wait list time frames are looking like? I'm currently at position 11,178.

Thank you for sharing the life experience you've had on your travels, but this is a service based in San Francisco. Discussion would be more productive if scope was narrowed to the topic of OP.

Where are you getting your data from? I'm an avid cook and have always thought EVOO to be a low smoke point oil, especially compared to something like peanut oil.

I did a quick search and found this: https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/cooking-fats-101-whats-a...

which suggests that EVOO has a relatively low smoke point compared to sunflower and peanut oil.

I'm still open to other numbers though, since I'm not sure what study if any these numbers come from.

I strongly disagree. Financially supporting a charity is an extremely good way for someone with a lot of money to give back. The charitable person may not have expertise to distribute the money effectively, whereas a group who are familiar with the needs and thus where the money should go and how it should be used will use it well.

IMO, what you're saying is akin to saying: Criminals on the streets? Why pay to hire more cops when you can physically go out on the streets and BE the cop?

Seems like a minor bump in the road for a company as huge as Amazon. Barely news.

What real world value to long buyers add? Sure, if you invest and the company takes that investment and does really well with it, the world may benefit from an increase in productivity/wealth. But if you invest and the company does poorly and tanks, then the world loses by something because you could have taken that money somewhere productive. The kind of market that produces the most real world value is one where companies are valued accurately. If you think a stock is undervalued, you go long. If you think it's overvalued, you go short. Both actions affect the market value of a stock.

Seems like two sides of the same coin. I can't see where an argument against one doesn't work against the other.

How do they prevent ballot-stuffing? (Not trying to invalidate what you're saying, I'm genuinely curious)

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy--you cannot use appeal to authority to create a rigorous argument. I agree with that.

But you can gain some idea of probability that something is correct or incorrect. For example, if 99 of 100 doctors agree that vaccines do not cause autism, that does not necessarily mean that vaccines do not cause autism. But chances are really good that the 99% of doctors are correct.

Nice job giving the formal name of a logical fallacy, though. Adds a lot of credibility to your argument!

You understand wrong. And are naive to think that such a simplistic flaw would not be considered by the substantial number of intelligent programmers involved in the Bitcoin project.

The transaction fees on the network are incentives for miners to pass transactions in addition to block rewards.

You might be interested in this: https://getfinal.com/

Careful--there is a tendency for engineers to conflate superior technology with the success of a product.

> I would say "sure this stock is 'worth' $500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I think it is ridiculous.

Not that ridiculous! Give yourself some credit. One of the reasons taxes work this way is to incentivize people to keep their money invested.

Yeah, this is exactly what I thought of too. Searched for "CGP" and there your comment is! :)

I think it's both brave and foolish.

Zappos has been very successful and had a clear positive trajectory before holacracy/Teal. Clearly foolish to jeopardize that to such a degree!

At the same time, you may believe that a new system could truly pay off and take you to the Next Level. Maybe there would be a temporary setback, but you have to grit your teeth and believe in your reasoning that it will work out in the end, better than had you kept the status quo.

I can't help but think of Hsieh as a kind of artist. He isn't trying to just make money or "be successful" like most people. He wants to create something new and exceptional. And will reach for it while paying little mind to the risks.